Little Women (2019) is actually a terrible film and book adaptation. I talk about why I think so. All clips in this video belong to their respective owners. My Instagram: / hil_yan My Twitter: / sturm_und_drang My Goodreads: / emily-l
A couple points I didn't address in this already long video: -Professor Bhaer was actually inspired by several loves in LMA's life, including Henry Thoreau. So if we want to interpret Jo as LMA's fictional counterpart, it doubly doesn't make sense to deny her capacity for romance the way this film does. LMA loved unconventionally handsome men, therefore Jo did. Why is this so hard to buy? -Laurie and Amy coming together feels rushed and feels like a knee jerk reaction to Beth's death. It also doesn't show Laurie making use of himself in business to prove himself to Amy, which was a crucial to their relationship development. -The costumes are period inaccurate and just don't make sense to the characters or their situations in life. An excellent video that gives a detailed breakdown of the costumes in the film and why they don't make sense is this one from Micarah Tewers, who gives a better analysis than I probably could: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_sBqqERMblo.html
Emiloid i did lover every aspect of that film. But I watched Micarahs video and she made soo much sense, she is so smart. For me the costuming is my only gripe with the film but I welcome your POV
Emiloid I agree with you completely! I just watched this movie a couple days ago. I have read Little Women at least 40 times since I was a kid, and I’ve watched all the movie versions. This movie is a sad mess.
@Rosamund Powell Nearly *everything* she said in the video was an immature criticism, but I don't have time to respond to all of it. (She isn't important enough, sorry.) Just quickly replying to her points here: 1) Untrue. Alcott liked and admired Thoreau (and other males), but had no desire for a romance with him. Alcott Quote: Thoreau’s neckbeard “will most assuredly deflect amorous advances and preserve the man’s virtue in perpetuity.” airshipdaily.com/blog/9232013how-ugly-was-henry-david-thoreau Moreover, this film certainly did not deny Jo's capacity for romance. She seems to be denying Alcott's capacity for same-sex romance, as evidenced by Alcott's own diaries. 2) Laurie and Amy were given more development here than almost any other version. No, their coming together was not rushed and had nothing to do with Beth's death. (Perhaps she wasn't paying attention.) And Laurie did say he would prove himself in business, in the future. 3) The costumes were good enough for an Oscar and good enough for me. Perhaps they weren't perfectly period accurate, but focusing on the March women's clothes is a bit sad.
@@AbcDef-ww2gy I don't think "importance" takes away the validity of Emiloid's arguments. I believe they were well supported and well explained. (Even professional critics on Rotten Tomatoes have said their reviews are just opinions too, and it's up to us readers/listeners/viewers to place what level of importance to ascribe to them.) We may disagree on the qualities of the 2019 version of Little Women, and I won't take away your love and admiration for it. For myself, I thought it was such a painful experience in the cinema. It certainly doesn't earn you (or me!) any cool points for saying you didn't like this film… and so be it if I'm not cool. I thought Gerwig didn't deserve an Oscar nomination for this film, and the film itself, while there are things to like about it, is overall a negative for me.
@@fastbowler The film was a masterpiece. As for this video's shallow creator, I meant she wasn't important enough for me to *waste my time* laboriously countering her points. I could, to every single point, but I have better things to do. (Call me again if she reaches 1M views.) Watching this video itself was a waste of time for me, and frankly for you too, although I know people love "echo chambers" where they hear their own views repeated back to them ... Anyway, for anyone who felt any confusion from the juxtaposed timelines in this version (I'm not saying that is you), re-watching the film should clear everything up, and be a much better use of time than watching this petty video.
YeahItsMe 00 It’s honestly so scary that the idea of two people giving and receiving love is a negative thing. Why is it bad to find someone who adores you, respects you, and treats you well? Just because a woman finds happiness with a man does not mean she is a needy weak woman or whatever people tend to think these days.
@@springlady8337 well, in traditional asian cultures and devout religious families, yes in some contemporary parts. And I thought we were talking about the movie. My bad.
180 It’s all good. Society as a whole just seems to have a negative outlook on a traditional mindset. It’s okay if you don’t want to marry and it’s okay if you do want to marry. No one has any right to say what you should want in life. I think it’s sad that some people think they have the authority to dictate what is right and what is wrong when it comes to something as simple as loving someone.
This is so dumb since this is the oNly film worthy for oscAR this year sorry if you avengers endgame fan but it is the most rushed film LAST YEAR THATS WHAT I SAY MCU IS TRASH.
@goodbyehoes No have you seen their rotten tomatoes scores might need ta fix that plus once upon a time was hated alot and jojo rabbit rotten tomates(top critics)on show details and meta score ant lookin too good
Chris Patterson That’s the thing, it’s just her opinion. Opinions factually can’t be wrong, as they are not facts. Everyone thinks differently, and the great thing about opinions is that they aren’t wrong or right, they’re just thoughts.
B R right, it seemed obvious to me that both depict how Jo’s world is crumbling (she lost one sister to marriage while another to death). Although one is worse than the other, Jo is longing for the days of her childhood.
@@amymarch1780 but then the problem is that you are turning Jo's sisters into the puppets or automatons of her story, who exist for the sole purpose of serving Jo's story.
Nadinaventura Well, Jo is the main character and overall anchor of the story. Also, by no means are the sisters ‘puppets’ to Jo’s story. I was actually surprised by how fleshed out each sister was, especially in adulthood. All the sisters were allowed to tell their own story. We see Jo struggling with loneliness, Amy battling with the weight of supporting her family, Meg attempting to understand motherhood & marriage, and Beth facing her death.
If you ever look a combining factor from Louisa May Alcott´s novels, she constantly promotes her idea of a marriage between equals. She hated the way people saw her as being synonymous with Jo´, because she wrote Jo to be an idealized version of herself. Jo has elements from several women Louisa admired and Friedrich has elements from the men she admired (both German and American).
It was always odd to me how people assume Jo is a synonymous with LMA, and yet deny her capacity for romance given evidence LMA loved several men throughout her life!
@@Emiloid I know right. Every single LMA biography that I have read mentions her love for Henry and Emerson and her fling with Ladislas...none of the moviemakers ever want to mention any of those things ( and most of them are jo and laurie shippers) they rather say that Jo is a lesbian than she could actually fall for a man that they themselves don´t find attractive.
Alcott herself believed stated she believed she was a male soul trapped in a women body. So if thats what they were going for ie giving the character what it wanted or something, in that re gard they could have gone all the way and given the character of jo what it stated several times she wanted,' she couldn't get over not being a boy' Beth even restates the disire by saying ' it cant be helped. you need to be contented with making your name boyish and play brother to us girls." Jo waffles between a world of male or female and her place in it. And ultimately chooses the place of 'Mother' bhear of her own free will.
Alcott admired many men, certainly, but she did not "love" Henry Thoreau romantically. Alcott's Quote: Thoreau’s neckbeard “will most assuredly deflect amorous advances and preserve the man’s virtue in perpetuity.” airshipdaily.com/blog/9232013how-ugly-was-henry-david-thoreau These biographies are not as good a source as Alcott's own diaries. (And this filmmaker was not a Jo and Laurie shipper any more than a Jo and Friedrich shipper.)
You just voiced every issue I had with this movie!! No exaggeration. Every point. Thank you!! I found most of the roles were miscast, esp Laurie and Meg. Amy desperately needed to have another actor portray her younger self. I was baffled by every Oscar nomination and outcry about the "snub". One thing I did love was Beth's character and bits with the piano, but her death wasn't impactful. I bawl every time in the 1994 version.
Me too! Beth's death in 1994 gets to me every time. In 2019 the lead up to her death is constantly disrupted and afterwards we cut to Meg's wedding, so we can never really absorb the impact of her loss
@@Emiloid I also meant to add that you highlighted my problem with Sherlock. The writer has done the same gobbledeegook in his other projects, and people fawn over it. It never has substance, nor does it make sense. Drives me nuts.
I think this is lies because jo is perfect they all are and the oscars knew that and 95% of critics and 91 of metacritic and most audiences the problem was beths character even watchmojo said it that we cant sympathize with beth because we already get a idea shell die.
I would also like to talk more about Jo's writing, and how it relates to Beth's death, and I feel like this deserves its own comment. In the book, a huge part of Jo's arc is her coming to the realization that she had been selling out for money, that she had been so caught up in the thrill of easy money from churning out stories that catered to a specific subset of readership that she didn't stop to think about her own artistic integrity, whether her heart was really in those stories, and what it meant for her as a writer. And even though in the books she doesn't actually publish her autobiography until two sequels later, in the 1994 version, her writing Little Women felt not only like a way for her to process her grief after Beth's death, but also a loving tribute to the life she and her sisters had, to prove that Beth's life had more meaning than what she claimed herself to be ("I never saw myself as anything much, never had ambitions and dreams like the rest of you etc."). But in the 2019 movie, Jo's struggle with writing was never about following her heart vs. chasing the dollar. It's about how her writing isn't taken seriously because it's discredited as "women's art". It's a struggle against the patriarchy. It's no longer about her experimenting with writing to find the genre that speaks to her, it all just boils down to finding the right motivation/inspiration to write the magnum opus she was meant to all along. Put this in the context of Beth's death and suddenly it seems like Beth's death was the catalyst she needed all along to write her great American novel. That's why her writing her novel after Beth's death didn't feel cathartic, it was exploitative. And frankly, I'm disgusted.
Totally agree with you, and I would also like to add that in the 1994 movie, this is seen too when the professor confronted Jo and make her realize that she was not being true to herself, but rather to the money. I loved this detail because, apart from the romantic bond that was developing between the Professor and Jo, the Professor gave Jo a "place" in a society that was ruled by men; but a society that was striving for something more. Thus making the Professor the only person whose opinion was importat to Jo. Hence, it is so significant when she sends the book to him. And in the 2019 movie, all those little details were missing, and to me that ended up forcing the story in so many levels, including the relationship between them.
This is the best comment ever. When Jo publishes her first book it becomes a flop because she takes everyone´s advice, but she is not mature enough to see which advice is good or bad. She even says (and this is even before she goes to New York "that´s just it, I´v been fussing over the thing for so long, I don´t know if it´s good or bad or indifferent. It will be a great help to have the cool impartial person take a look at it, and tell me what they think of it". LMA foreshadows Jo´s character growth with Friedrich.
Honestly, i love Emma Watson, but the movie probably went downhill when she was casted. The costumes look... Weird, and they don't look like they have been thought through that much. Also i've never thought Timothee Chalamet was a good casting for Laurie They also removed a huge part of Jo's character with the ending. She didn't want to marry Laurie because she didn't feel it was right, she wanted to marry someone who she actually felt connected to, and Laurie just wasn't it. She got married with someone she loved and she knew was right, instead of marrying the first dude who asked her. And that is a huge point of the novel, because it was saying that a woman could have agency in her own life (i know, crazy)
Omg omg omg omg I can so relate to what you said! Hats off man! I like Emma Waston too! She is so beautiful inside out and such an inspiring person and I just love her, she from beauty and the beast but she wasn't a good casting for Meg. What meg truly was and how her traits are mentioned in the books, I just couldn't see that in her. Sure she acted good and she is a brilliant actress but she just does not seem like someone who would be suitable for a person like Meg. Meg’s character just doesn't fit well with Emma. No hate because I love her wholeheartedly too! It's just my opinion so yeah. Someone lashed out at me for my opinion in another video 🤣 and I couldn't stop laughing because the person clearly was immature since he/she couldn't digest the fact that people do have different opinions and not everyone will be at your feet when it comes to opinions and that, not everyone will agree with you. That person clearly couldn't get or see that despite being nice and not rude. It's okay, not my problem that some ppl cannot just be understanding. The person told me how good the movie was apwhne I never even said the movie was bad 😂😂😂😂😂
Actors rarely look like the person one imagined while reading the book. Instead of complaining about casting, which is in effect complaining about the actors' looks, judge the actors on their acting performance in their roles.
Okay I actually liked this movie and thought Florence Pugh was endearing in her role but your impression of her “I’m sorry Jo.” killed me! She already has a deep voice for a woman let alone a 12 year old girl so I get that point. Also the costumes were pretty bad. I don’t know what the academy was smoking when they gave it to them. Edit: I’d also like to add that I respect the heck out of your take about how the media pushes the idea that a woman has to be single to be independent and strong. I think that’s a very simplistic and unhealthy way of looking at things.
Yes, and that was a very simplistic take on the movie. All the sisters were shown to be strong here. Amy was stronger and given more character development than any previous version, and she was very much pro-marriage. (By the way, the film didn't expect anyone to believe Pugh was actually a 12yo girl, considering they showed her to be an adult in the same film, often in the adjacent scene! It's called "suspension of disbelief".)
I think the academy award costumes based on whether they thought they looked pretty/interesting/well crafted strictly from an aesthetic point of view and are ignorant as most people are of fashion history. If they care about historical accuracy, then they don't realize that the costume and styling choices aren't accurate. They also are probably looking at the relationship between character and clothing as serving a symbolic function as opposed to a realistic one establishing time, place and circumstance: for instance, they will look at the March sister's disparate clothing styles as establishing each girl's unique personality, without regarding the fact of their station in society, their age, or the practical realities of Victorian life, that a family would make one dress for each girl from a single bolt of cloth and the youngest would be receive many hand-me-downs rather than being indulged with special items made especially for her, particularly in the March household which stressed a rejection of vanity.
I read that essentially Gerwig was responsible for all the ridiculous costume changes because she thought hoop skirts, sausage curls, bonnets, and essentially the clothing of that time period was ugly. If she wanted to make a Little Women where the characters act modern, dress more to what is considered "fashionable" to modern eyes, and the rest of the historical context of the movie is ignored half the time, she should be just made a modern or more modern retelling of Little Women which is adapted appropriately. At least then this movie would've offered something more different to the table & the historical dress & backdrop of the movie wouldn't be all over the place because the director simply didn't like it
I feel like changing Bhaer, who challenged and criticized Jo, is also sort of a way to remove something so many creators don't like. Criticism. Even though criticism is so important, people hate it so much now that they throw fits and just put it all up to 'they're haters'. Yeah, some people are just blindly hating on things but it's important to listen to legitimate criticism. Criticism is how you grow as a creator, it's how you do better, because you have to listen and use what you hear to improve. Cutting that out keeps you stagnant and boring and is such a betrayal to not just your craft but to your audience. It really feels like Greta was just mad that somebody dared to criticize Jo even if the professor wasn't doing it in a way to be awful in the book and the 1994 film. He genuinely wanted Jo to do better and there's nothing wrong with that. Making him some vile antagonist is such a spit in the face to his character. As a writer myself I don't just want yes-men around me. My fiancee is honest about my writing and it's good. It helps me improve. She's honest about what doesn't work. Criticism is scary, sure, but it's not evil.
In the novel, Jo herself condemns her own writings. That was based on reality because Louisa used to write sensational stories to a New York magazine. The editor wanted more and more shocking stories and Louisa resented that because they went against her values (imagine being very against racism and you are being asked to write racist content). LMA writes in her diary how her friend Emersen gave her encouragement to leave the magazine). EVERY SINGLE Little Women movie leaves away that part where Jo herself describes how writing those sensational stories make her feel uncomfortable and EVERY SINGLE Little Women make it seem that Jo is defending her writings when in the book she doesn't-. ThAT is so messed up and I think you are right. Of course Louisa would give Jo a partner who would support her career as a writer (which i something that Laurie was not cabable to do).
I did not watch the film and think the professor came across as "evil", a "vile antagonist", an "a$$hole", or any of the other terrible things that have been said either. The romantic ending with the umbrella was actually rather sweet. Of course, this film had two separate endings, because Gerwig wanted to show us Alcott's true ending without the limitations that were imposed on her at the time. This has nothing to do with hating Bhaer.
When Jo reacted the way she did to Bhaer's criticism, I was so annoyed. I hadn't even read the book, but I thought her reaction as an author was emotionally immature, unprofessional, and unfair to Bhaer. She WANTED his opinion and when he gave an honest one, she got angry with him? I think it was meant to be read as a scene showcasing her anger like her personality is in the while while also showing Bhaer as a mean snob, but I just read it as Jo being unprofessional and Bhaer being treated unfairly. I wish there had been a scene where they reconciled and she takes his criticism to heart. Personally for me as an artist, I don't care if people don't like my work, but if they have genuinely criticisms for me, I'll listen. So much of improving your craft is listening to critiques of your work, and even if someone is wrong, their insight might give you ideas for your next project. I don't know how Jo would expect to make it in an industry fully scathed where she responds like that to criticism where at least a few people will inevitably dislike your work, and idk I just read it as immature for a character who should know that
I love the 1994 version! They really feel like sisters in that version and the acting is really good, whereas in the 2019 film, there were only a few standout performances and the chemistry between the sisters was off. People saying that they don’t like Laurie in the old version because he’s “creepy”, that for me is just a staple of the way people behaved then. I love this video!
I saw the movie yesterday, and I had to explain so much to my partner who hadn't read the book! It was such a messy, jarring story while doing everyone involved dirty. The "feminist" ending for Jo isn't feminist at all: when you're content being alone that's fine, but being vulnerable and finding someone who is truly right for you? That's human. It shouldn't be radical to love someone, and it definitely shouldn't be portrayed as wrong or too cheesy. That's where Jo matured and found happiness when she was so scared of growing up. Thanks for the video! Really well done👌
Friedrich Bhear is a very important character for Jo's development. He is the one she seeks advice from, who is a good friend to her in New York, and who is always honest with her. Basically he is the one who inspires her to write the book "little women" after he tells her to write something that really moves her and that comes from the heart. It is absolutely no coincidence that he is German. Alcott's family lived according to the German philosophy of transcendentalism. Alcott has more to do with German authors, philosophers and attitudes towards life than with French ones. Bhear becomes a father figure, then a friend, and later a husband. There are really nice scenes in the 94s Version that show how they get closer and closer and he becomes a really close friend and confidante. That is totally missing in the new version. He understands her, unlike Laurie. But for some inexplicable reason, Gerwig changed him and pushed him aside. As if the message of the film is that women don't need men. Which is totally stupid. An independent woman can still be inspired by a man and still fall in love. Maybe it should never be a romance before the editor interfered, but Friedrich was definitely an important character for Jo in New York and also for Alcott herself.
But it's especially bizarre when she contradicts her own message by showing her much suffering Jo has to go through in rejecting both Laurie and Bhaer. It's excruciating to watch Jo's character go through this in the film and she looks genuinely unhappy at the end.
I fully agree! The two big things that really made this adaptation hard to like were not having a younger actress play young Amy. Watching an adult woman burn Jo's novel didn't hit the same mark as when an angry child does it. In no way does she look like a kid who’s being reactionary, she's looks like someone who's old enough to know better. And Marmee, ugh. She's a calm serene character who helps her daughters figure out who they want to be and guides them with a loving hand. Laura Dern's Marmee felt like she was trying too hard to be one of the daughters. She was giggly and childish and it felt so forced. I think that's a good way to describe a lot of this adaptation, it felt forced.
YES watching Amy burn the book in this film felt like a genuinely malicious act, especially when she straight up says she wanted to hurt Jo. And Marmee! I don't think enough people address how insubstantial Laura Dern's Marmee is - she's nothing like the strong woman in the book, who all the girls run to when they have a problem.
@@Emiloid I have my complaints about the 2017 mini series, but on hindsight I'd choose a sterner Marmee over a bland Marmee any given day. Dern's Marmee looks like a half-assed copy of 2018 Marmee, except that 2018 was a modern day adaptation and the character had room to breath in that one.
I will say one thing. I knew nothing about little woman before watching the movie and i was so sure that Amy was mentally ill because of how childishly she acted as an "adult" but turns out she was suppose to be 12 in these scenes xD
The fact that the ending for Jo was not really what the author wanted surprised me because, while reading the book, the relationship between the professor and Jo feels natural and gives her character a nice conclusion. The fact that the author was able to portrait this relationship, even though it wasn't her initial plan, just shows how much she really loved and cared for her characters and that she was a very careful writer, I admire her a lot because of that
I think that it's possible for a writer to "want" a different ending for their character, but to change that idea once they actually sit down and write it. I've done this many times with my writing. What we "want" for a character is not always where the character goes. LMA wrote an ending for Jo that is natural and good for her arc and the story. Why bother writing that if it doesn't work?
I felt the same way. I really love the relationship between Jo and Friedtrich because it felt very mature and I love how much Jo grows through that relationship, as both a person and as a writer. The fact that this movie basically shat on their relationship pissed me off so much!
It feels like all the flashbacks takes away the emotion of the story. Like you have Beth almost dying, then gets better, then dies, then she is alive again at Meg's wedding. In the 1994 version, you have emotion with Beth almost dying, and hope when she survives, and then has another Christmas. Then you see her deteriorate again, and Jo is with her when she dies. But in the 2019 version, it was like, sad, oh no she's going to die, oh now she's better, oh now she's dead, but now we are all happy because she is alive. We never see the full connection of Joe and Beth with their last few moments together. It just seemed to try to be a rollercoaster of emotions, but never leaves you in one spot long enough to have emotion. My opinion, that's it.
When watching any other adaptation (especially the ‘94 film) or reading the novel, the sadness isn’t just in the scene where Beth dies. It weighs every scene after, every moment that she isn’t a part of. Just like grief colors our own lives. Having Beth’s death immediately followed by scenes of her living robs the audience of their ability to grieve for her because her absence is never truly felt. No movie will ever make me cry as much as the ‘94 adaptation but the tears never start in the scene where Jo turns from the window and Beth is gone. They begin in the next scene with the empty bed and Hannah spreading the flower petals over Beth’s dolls.
It's honestly insulting that Gerwig thought that she could disregard the transcendentalist themes that were the essential to the novel, but then take it upon herself to rewrite the ending for Jo that Alcott "wanted". And by doing so, she reduces the feminist message of the story to money and romance, which is such a small portion of the novel!
Absolutely, couldn't say it better myself! Her interpretation was incredibly reductive and shallow and lacked a lot of fundamental understanding of the novel's themes
@Blue Girl Comfortably off, but not rich. Her background was similar to the main character in Ladybird. They lived in a Sacramento suburb, her mother was a nurse and her father worked in a credit union. Still, having spent years playing Noah Baumbach's insufferable ingenue seems to have stuck with her.
@@GrainneMhaol Actually, Greta Gerwig offered both endings - the ending in the novel, plus an alternate ending where Jo became Alcott since Little Women was obviously based on herself and her family.
When I looked at the adaptation of 2019, I had a strange feeling. I couldn’t empathize with the characters, and after the movie there were a lot of questions. I thought that maybe I watched inattentively and thus could not understand the film. But then I accidentally stumbled upon your video. I do not know much English, so I understood superficially your detailed review. But when I looked at the 1994 adaptation, I understood what you were talking about. The film answered my questions and more deeply revealed your review, which was hard for me to watch due to the language barrier. Thank you so much!
I agree with so many of your points. Also, did you notice that several scenes seemed to be shot-for-shot reproductions of scenes from the 1994 version, such as the pond scene or the scene where Jo cries over her hair. Oddly Robin Swicord produced both movies. It's like Gerwig wanted to climb on the shoulders of the 1994 version, but pretending to be radically original and subversive by changing the ending, thereby screwing over fans of the novel and the previous adaptations. The 1994 version did a lot of work including Alcott's radical family philosophies, such as the scene where Meg talks about silk and slavery, which added so much to her character and gave weight to the family's financial state and moral strength. This film used switching timelines and a gimmicky ending to seem edgy, but I agree that it keeps the audience at a distance. It reminded me of Gerwig's partner's film Francis Ha. I wanted to like it, but the artifice was alienating.
The novel has so much stuff that never gets adapted, or character arcs and situations that were not explored in previous adaptations that when you know the book and think about it, the originality claims fall flat.
It is Robin Swicord producing both, so I was originally hopeful because of that, but then disappointed in 2019. Severely. I wonder if Robin was as well. It wasn't radical, it was stupid and offensive to the source material.
@@AbcDef-ww2gy Meg (in the novel) never seemed like the dullest sister to me. Meg loved acting. Meg was beautiful. Meg was vain. Meg is intelligent and capable of wiadom. Meg gave up on her dreams for "dull reality" and was happy with her choice. Meg loved her family. Meg was embarrassed about her family's poverty. Meg is the only sister who gets married and has children pre-epilogue. What made Meg dull for you?
@@PrincessSixThirteen Thank you, your descriptions of Meg in the novel are also an exact, word-for-word fit for Meg in this movie, played by Emma Watson! She may seem to be the dullest sister because the focus of the story is not on her. However, I used that word to reply to the previous posters, who may mistake the lack of focus on her character to mean that Emma Watson was boring.
the fact that meg tries to buy silk in the film SHOWS just how little Gerwig understood the book because the March's were against buying silk. and Meg doesn't throw away her morales as easily as Amy. I also hated how all the women looked the same age. Everyone looks like their age order can be interchangeable. Also in the 1994 version Beth dies as a result of HELPING OTHERS that's why it hits so hard, she was trying to be like her mother and it didnt work, starting with her sick just is like why. Plus it was a nice juxtaposition that she got sick because she was helping others and died helping Joe with giving her the courage to write because she emphasizes that its okay for Joe to not be typical. Plus this version of the Professor is too young and hot, that cheapens the relationship to me. Joe wasn't a typical beauty and neither was the professor. I liked that the professor was the opposite of Laurie. Laurie is the first love that you were never suppose to end up with where as the professor is the unlikely love that wasn't "ideal"but was everything you needed
EXACTLY! I’m so happy someone else mentioning the silk side plot. The 1994s film makes an important point of the Marches not wearing silk for ethical reasons. In this rushed, overly long movie this storyline felt completely superfluous, and an expensive, frivolous purchase is out of place for Meg’s character (though I haven’t read the sequels). Why was this storyline added while key scenes were rushed through as if the cast was being timed???
I completely agree! I also find it quite strange that Meg buys the silk, for the reason of how much it costs. She came from a poor family that were many times short on money, and she herself had to handle the finances to help her mother, and when her mom was away. So of course, she would want to buy something expensive, of course not silk, but I don't believe she would have been so impulsive in her buying, when she was so experienced in knowing how much to spend.
@@katherinemartin7370 Exactly! Meg giving the rag money for the limes is "frivolous" but for the sake of her sister, so even in that she ends up being selfless.
I don't how to say this but the entire buying expensive silk plotline is from the book. Like word for word almost. The argument they have over the expense list, her selling the silk back to afford the greatcoat, everything. I generally didn't like the movie and I agree that they shouldn't have put this plotline in if they were going to sideline it this much but to all the people in this comment chain: your interpretation of Meg is not book compliant. (Which is OK, we can have our own interpretations on characters.)
@@GotikLeyla Exactly. It is true the readers of the time would have probably understood why silk is problematic, so it is actually a good metaphor for something shiny and pretty but also dangerously expensive.
I agree with all your points. I think Meg buying a bolt of silk is completely out of character in the 2019 movie as she would never buy the silk. She mentions it at Gardiner's party that she does not buy silk as the silk mills use little children for labor, she wants to take a stand against child labor. She feels terrible guilty in the party for wearing the borrowed dress etc....
Actually, in the book, Meg did want to wear a silk dress. They changed it in the 1994 movie to show how different the March family were from other people.
OMG YES AND THANK YOU. I despised this adaptation. (And I'm one of those weirdos who loved the 1933 version in my youth.) I could almost see the director's dislike of the source material emanating from the screen. It's fine if you want to stray really far from Little Women, but then ... maybe don't call it Little Women? Do a nice biopic of Alcott and weave in some scenes from the book or whatever. Just make a different movie if what you want is to make a different movie. Also, Amy is 12 at the start of the novel, and Pugh is now 24. No one who actually interacts with middle school students is going to buy her as a kid that age. It doesn't matter how good she is. You can do that stuff on stage, but it's weird and jarring on film. I legit thought something was wrong with her or that I wasn't following where in the timeline we were supposed to be. Everyone ended up playing the same age, which doesn't work because birth order has this huge impact on their personalities. GAH.
Thank you for this! I have seen about five adaptations of Little Women and this is actually kind of the worst. A very talented cast, but a botched adaption of the source material. One of the richest veins to mine in the novel is the maturation of the sisters as individuals AND in relation to each other. You can't skip back and forth the way this movie does and still maintain the emotional arc and connection that is so important. This Amy, to me, was like a modern adaptation version of the original. She felt nothing like the book version of Amy, a character I actually like and, as the youngest of three sisters, understood. The 1990s version managed to be "modern" but still be true to the original. This one is a gimmick.
I get that the non-linear method of storytelling was supposed to give the movie the theme of memories. The past are the March sisters’ memories of their lives as young girls now that they’re women. My problem with it, however, was that it was very clumsy and didn’t do much to serve any audience member who probably didn’t know the story. I watched this movie with my boyfriend, who knew nothing about Little Women beforehand and he had no idea what was going on.
The problem of the non-linearity is that Greta had to make so many changes to the timeline that it ended up not making sense. Like, the actual jump in the book happens from 1862-3 to 1865-6, whereas in the movie is from 1862 to 1869. And it's like everything in the "childhood" timeline happened in 1862 and everything in the "adulthood" timeline happened in 1869. And she also put Laurie's proposal in the 1862 timeline, which is so wrong. It's just really hard to understand how Amy gets to go to Europe if she's a child because there's no change of image to let you see that she's older (18 years old). Florence's voice somehow helped me understand the seriousness of her monologue, but yes, as much as I love Florence Pugh she does not look like Amy. One point in her favor is that she, as an actress, seemed to be the only one in the cast to really understand her character. Timmy has no idea who Laurie is and he's a JoxLaurie shipper and Saoirse defends Greta's version (Sorry, this comment came a year later).
Completely agree with EVERYTHING you said. the forced masculinity in Jo was ridiculous it’s like the director completely rewrote the character altogether smh.
Quite honestly, I don't really understand the criticism that Jo was overly masculine in Gerwig's adaptation, for two points. For one, I don't really believe that she was presented in any particularly masculine way, and in the hair cutting scene and the attic scene most pertinently, it is shown that she cares deeply about her femininity. And two, even in the original source material, she is quite often referenced as being very boyish and purposefully being so; 'That's why I do it' being a reference to her boyish behaviour, and even in fact, wishing she were a man. So why would the forced masculinity, even if it were interpreted as being present in Gerwig's adaptation, even be an issue?
I know this video isn’t all that recent anymore, and that I’ve already commented. But I just wanted to say that I rewatched this movie with my boyfriend the other night, as he had just finished reading the book. He thought the movie wasn’t good at all, and couldn’t believe what Greta Gerwig did Jo and Professor Bhaer’s relationship as well as the ending. I’ve talked to a lot of people who love this movie, and I’ve noticed a common tread. Most of them have never read the book or seen any other movie adaptations. I think this is really unfortunate, because had they known what this story was meant to be originally, they’d realize just how odd and inaccurate a lot of the choices are in this movie. I’m all for artists taking risks and I’ll give credit to Gerwig for not just copying and pasting from any of the other film adaptations. But with a novel like Little Women that’s so well know and has been read by generations of young readers, it’s so important to honor the story for what it is, not what you want it to be or wish it was. Okay, rant over. :p Keep up the good work Emily! I love your videos :)
I know, Jo's relationship with Bhaer in this seems just based on superficial attractiveness, not that over time she gets to know his personality, that they work together, and that they help each other in a way that Laurie and Jo just don't. He was kind of based on her friendship with Thoreau, and her letters about him being unattractive are usually wheeled out to suggest she didn't like him - but that is exactly what Jo's letters about Bhaer are like, it is more we know they are getting closer because he takes up more and more space in her letters, even if it seems she is just reporting back how weird he is etc etc.
you are right in every point. I hated the way the sisters and Marmee behave like a bunch of silly screaming girls. That scene when they go to look for Amy at the Laurence's house.... so bad.
It just seems like Hollywood is willing to sacrifice everything for the themes of the day. The original author's clear intent (by what they actually wrote!), the historical setting (and how that affects the characters), the characters and their arcs, etc. Sorry but if you intend to ignore 99% of the essence of a story, please don't attempt to produce that story. Write a new one that tells the story you want told without ruining another's work.
I haven’t actually watched this adaptation and this video confirms all my fears for it. It’s sad to me that a beautiful story was destroyed to serve a “point”. One small note, I personally always saw Jo’s resistance to marriage stemming from a fear that she would never be able to find a partner who would support her passions and be able or willing to engage her intellectually. That’s why she chose Bhaer, she realized that here was a man that would not only support her passions, but challenge her to grow and succeed in those passions.
@@yazmatazz06 That is not the case in the novel. Even already in the first book Jo is reading romance novels, She wants a partner and a family. In the second part she talks with Meg about when she sees how content she is with her children and her husband. Louisa wanted that for herself as well, you can read that all over from her journals. Henry Thoreau who was model for Fritz, he was the love of Louisa´s life. When he passed away Louisa never found anyone who would live up to his level. She even wrote to her journal that he was " a perfect man".
@@yazmatazz06 Alcott’s publisher wanted Jo married to Laurie. When Little Women was published, it was published as two separate books- Little Women and Good Wives. After the publishing of Little Women, the readership was clamouring for Jo and Laurie to end up together. Alcott decided to subvert that and instead created Jo “a funny match” in Professor Bhaer.
This is an old comment but anws let me say It is a good movie lol, the way you jump to the conclusion saying "story was destroyed" without even watching is funny to me, bcuz if you always watch this kinda movie criticize video before actually watching the movie then you never gonna watch or enjoy any movie. Bcuz even for any great movie or adaptation there are people who always not satisfied with it or try to dig the smallest detail them to be unhappy with it. & this movie adaptation does an adequate amount of justice to the original story.
I though I was the only person who was deeply disappointed with this adaptation. My poor husband, who didn't see the movie, had to listen to me rant and rave for days about the horribleness of it all. You so eloquently expressed everything I thought and felt but couldn't properly say. Thank you! I don't feel so much like a fish out of water, now! lol! (This is my husband's RU-vid account, so the comment is under his name, not mine ~ Janet! BTW did you ever read Rose in Bloom?
Thank you for your kind comment! I also subjected my friends and boyfriend to a lot of ranting about this film afterwards lol - making this video was the only way to get it out of my system! I confess I have not read LMA's other work - is that a good one?
@@Emiloid I think it's her best and it's one of my favorite books. Very romantic and somewhat humorous, a bit more like Pride & Prejudice. To really appreciate it, you'd have to first read Eight Cousins, because Rose In Bloom is a sequel, but it's not nearly as good (funnier, though!) Don't know what your style is, but I really loved it. Wish they'd make a movie of it!
What I really want in a Little Women film is a voice addressing exactly what Louisa May Alcott addressed; sensational stories. I feel like a lot of popular movies here in the present are just that, popular films that are nice, stylish, attractive, and sensational in that they are feminist, woke, etc. Not that those are bad, but people really like those new ideas and it makes money in the entertainment franchise. That is what makes them sensational stories, giving people what they want and making money instead of making real art. Little Women (2019) seems exactly like a sensational story, which is completely not what Louisa May Alcott was going for. Making popular content is settling for less and making cheap films, I want a voice in the world saying don't settle for cheap just to make money. It's exactly what LMA was saying, and I wish people would see that.
I'm SO glad to have stumbled upon your video and amidst all the baffling praise for this movie, your opinions are a much-needed breath of fresh air! None of the characters in the 2019 version appear genuine or endearing to me, which is crazy because this book and the unconventional wisdom conveyed by Marmee and the sisters played a huge part in defining my own perspective as a little girl. The 1994 version was and remains my absolute favourite because, despite its flaws, it captures the essence of the story and the context in which it takes place perfectly. Also, the characters, their interactions, their motivations, and the family dynamic is so organic and natural that you forget that you are not, in fact, watching a real family play out on-screen.
i agree with so much of what you said, especially about beth. i think this movie abandoned beth and her relationship with jo, when in reality beth is kind of the heart of the story and symbolizes the central conflict of little women -- the scariness of growing up and leaving childhood behind
Couldn’t agree more with everything!! This is a terrific, fleshed-out, intelligent analysis that hit all the nails on the head. Wonderful job! Also on Florence Pugh playing young & old Amy...can we just talk about when she’s literally sitting in the classroom with ACTUAL 11 year old girls and then there’s Florence who’s 25 pretending to be 11 talking to these girls and supposed to be their equal??? I was like how do they think this looks right??? It was so sloppy and bizarre.
Completely agree! I also wanted to add something about what Greta Gerwig replaced the incredible and character-enriching Jo/Bhaer relationship with. She said in a Vanity Fair interview that the "hat trick I wanted to pull off was what if you felt, when she gets her book, the way you generally feel about a girl getting kissed? What if we could figure out how to do that?" But if she was really trying to pull off a "love" plot in the film between Jo and her book, why would she open the movie with a scene where Jo sells one of her stories? There's no she/won't she be a successful writer and the emotional stakes are completely undercut. Drives me crazy.
It would have been far more interesting if the movie had been about LMA writing Little Women, getting scenes from the story and from LMA's life in two different levels.
Thank u for saying this, I had a lot of problems with the new one and was afraid I was just making up problems because my love for Christian Bale and Winona Ryder knows no bounds. The only thing I enjoyed more in the newer one is Amy as an adult feels far more fleshed out as a character. Although Florence Pugh as young Amy was horrible, I don’t understand the hate for Amy in general as far as her being childish and bratty but all of those complaints are made so much worse when an obvious grown woman is committing such childish offenses like burning the manuscript. It was far more believable and forgivable when young Kirsten Dunst did it imo.
Bhaer was done so dirty I completely agree with your thoughts on the new adaptation. Greta did want to erase his character to push the audience in favor of her preferred ending despite it ruining Jo’s arch. Personally I don’t care for Laurie because he’s extremely selfish and immature but too many people don’t see that and only see his looks. I really appreciate your review as I am also one of the ten people who disliked the movie because of the faults you mentioned in the video. Wonderful job, thank you! 💕
Thanks for watching, and for your kind comment ^^ I'm not crazy for Laurie either - on my most recent reading of the book, I was bewildered that people would ship him with Jo so much, because he's such a kid and pulls all kind of stupid shenanigans. Bhaer was such a refreshing contrast, and I hated that he was minimized this way.
But we all know Louisa May Alcott did not want Jo to marry anyone. She was forced to by her publisher. So she made Bhaer the dark horse that ends up winning Jo's hand. I don't know why it's bad when a director makes a film that incorporates the author's original intent.
@@reikun86 That is not quite true. In all her novels Louisa promotes her ideas of marriage between equals, and that was the time when most marriages were made because of financial reasons. In reality, Louisa´s publisher Thomas Niles would have preferred Louisa to marry Jo to Laurie. Niles also changed Laurie´s looks for the future books and his "foreign" features were erased. Friedrich is mainly based on Henry David Thoreau who Louisa was in love with and he is the romantic lead in all of her novels. Foreshadowing of Friedrich´s character begins already in the first chapters of Little Women (jo wishes a novel, written by French-German author Friedrich de la Motte Foque). The book series has constant references to German literature and Friedrich as a character is also partially based on Louisa´s favorite author Goethe. Throughout March saga is favorable towards German immigration. I´d highly recommend reading Christine Doyle´s study called "Singing Mignon´s Song", German literature and culture in Little Women" and Daniel Shealy´s "Wedding Marches" which highlights even more Louisa´s constant promotion of her ideal form of marriage that is based on love and respect. In this case, it was Greta Gerwig who did zero research. Louisa was a germanophile and even on her first trip to Europe, she visited Goethe´s house. Louisa was not either forced by her publisher to marry Jo, based on the letter between her and Niles, she was the one who came up with all the marriages, without any say from the publisher. Henry passed away about 5 years before Little Women was published, that would explain why she never married. In one of her notes, teen-age Louisa had scribbled a passage from one of Goethe´s novels about the way the protagonist growth is presented when his adoration transcended from one character to another and only then they know the true meaning of love. It actually seems that Louisa had this plot in her mind already when she was 15. As Meister grows in life & advances in wisdom, he becomes acquainted with women of more & more character, rising from Mariana to Natalia who expresses the Minerva side of things, Mignon, the electrical, inspired lyrical nature . . . "Passage represents Jo´s transference of affection from Laurie to Friedrich through her own growth and advancement in terms of character. Laurie is the fascination of her youth who will always be regarded with affection, but Friedrich has more character. Laurie is always a “boy” to Jo, but Friedrich is a man. Laurie possesses charm and culture; Friedrich, as we see, is cultured but also steady and well-grounded. He speaks both to her down-to-earth practicality and to her imagination (Doyle)
As someone who hasn’t read the book or watched the previous film, I was left so confused. First off, it took a while for it to be cemented in my mind that they were sisters. Then I audibly asked my mother “How old are they supposed to be?” because of Florence Pugh’s “child” act. I loved her role in Midsommar and thought she accurately portrayed anxiety, loss, and mourning in that film, so I was excited when I realized she was in the film. The non-linear timeline definitely only added confusion I felt. I was just left so sad when Jo turned Laurie down, but then wanted him back, just for him to end up marrying her sister. Then all of a sudden she’s in love with the professor, and then that’s not even real. It was all just so confusing. I agree with your statement that it was hard to empathize with the characters, it was hard to empathize with Meg’s marital struggles, as it was hard to empathize with the death of Beth, because immediately we jump to the kiss between Amy and Laurie, and then they arrive, and then it’s Meg’s wedding. The film didn’t allow me to sit with my emotions or feel anything other than sad for Jo, and made me feel like she was settling for the professor and that Laurie couldn’t truly love Amy and only settled for her sister to be close to Jo.
Finally! I loved the book! And the 1994 movie. This movie was so bad. I didn’t mind how they portrayed Amy and Laurie. I felt it gave it a bit more to their relationship. But the rest was so bleh. They ruined Meg and Brooke, the timeline made everything more complicated and just rushed. You couldn’t grasp half of what was happening because suddenly you were in another scene. I missed Bhaer, there was so much more to him in the book. Meg’s character was ruined. She did not feel like Meg. Amy was grating as she should be, but, I like how they showed more of the relationship, but getting together as soon as Beth dies feels really slack. It just felt that the movie was lacking in something. Anyway thank you for the review. :)
I agree the 1994 version of the film was so heartwarming and beautiful, that it stands as a classic for future generations. 1994 is not at all dated with unauthentic hairstyles or poor quality film pictures as was the case in the earlier adaptations. The 1994 is good quality for modern day technolgy, so there was no need for a newer adaption. I love the coming of age story of Little Women and the story of sisterly love and trying to hold on to childhood. Jo's sisters have grown up or passed on, therefore staying single would be a lonely existence because she can't stay in her nuclear childhood family. Time has passed and life must change. Jo grows up. The great success of Jo's character is the fact that she appreciates her family, loves writing and is able to be a successful writer, is fortunate to find true love in marriage, and have the opportunity to become a mother and carry on another generation. To pass down her morals and values to her children, just as her parents did, completes Jo. After all, we go on to have Little Men and Jo's Boys.
thank god i thought i was the only one! I personally don’t understand why greta gerwig is getting such praise, to be frank i don’t think her directing is anything special. ladybird, although it was alright overall, was so awkward to watch with all the random silences and stuff
Yeah I feel like her directing style is throwing artsy looking footage together, add some dialogue with some deep sounding platitudes, and call it a day. I didn't care much for Lady Bird myself, I definitely didn't get why people were calling it their favorite film of the year
Omg I completely agree and I hated this adaptation and ladybird as well! I thought everyone loved her films (especially ladybird) but I don’t connect to her directing at all and I don’t understand all the hype and praise she’s gotten. thought I was the only one feeling that way.
I’m so impressed with your take away from that movie- just wow. That was incredibly intelligent and you clearly understand that novel through and through (I’m a retired teacher). Too bad they didn’t consult you when making that movie! The problem I’m seeing is that people today don’t read, they just jump on the bandwagon thinking that whoever makes a movie- that interpretation- is correct without ever looking into what the actual author what trying to depict. It puts an awful lot of power in the hands of whoever is making the movies to inject their agendas into what their making and dishing out - as I saw in this classic and almost everything coming out it goes through that PC filter first and things are often not historically correct. The problem is that it gives a very narrow viewpoint as to what everyone thinks. I, for one, am tired of the same people deciding how we all should view things- it’s shallow, boring and not original to how life runs for all of us. Art is brave not safe. It would be nice to be able to watch a movie from the fearless perspective of what the author intended or what actually happened in history and not from what the Hollywood agenda police want. Thank you for being brave and saying what needed to be said.
It's a bit ironic, to make Jo alone something feminist and powerful, when you know Greta Gerwig is in a relationship with Noah Baumbach whom is 14 years older than her. In a way, she's involved in a relationship close to Jo's with professor Bhaer, yet she managed to refuse that ending, even if it's against Jo's development as seen in the movie and the book. I just think if she really wanted to pay a tribute to Louisa May Alcott's first version, the script would have needed major changes (but not the ones she made): like not adding Profesor Bhaer as a love interest in the first place and not choosing someone sexy like Louis Garrel to portray him. Also, she should have forget about that messy timeline, wich was so unnecessary and ruined all core scenes from the book. To me, it is not a real tribute to Alcott's work, but just a shallow way for Gerwig to make her movie standing out from other adaptations.
I completely agree with all your points. I was so disappointed when I saw this film, and I really wanted to like it. I loved the 90’s version but this version just fell flat. I hated the back and forth from one time frame to the other and the development between the characters relationships seemed extremely rushed. I felt myself sometimes annoyed by the family’s chaotic chatter, and thought “where is the decorum for this time period”. I could go on and on.....Such a great book, but horrible interpretation of it.
I agree, I hated being rushed from scene to scene, and the fact that the sisters always talked over each other really pissed me off. Just because the Marches belong to a liberal school of thought does not mean they weren't beholden to the behavioral standards of the time!
I watched the film the other day and I couldn't figure out exactly why I didn't like it. That is until I watched this video. I haven't seen the other adaptations however I have read the book. Casting-wise, I 1000% agree with you on every point. I am a massive Harry Potter fan and I have always lauded Emma Watson but it took this film to make me realize that she isn't a very good actress. I honestly think they casted her because she is a staunch feminist (I know, harsh. But that's how I feel) Thank you for helping me make my feelings on this film clear. You just gained yourself a new subscriber.
Thank you so much!! This means a lot to me :))) I agree, I don't think Emma Watson earned this role on acting merit at all. I went through a similar transition of liking her in Harry Potter, being lukewarm about her in films like Beauty & the Beast, to simply being underwhelmed by her in this film. Somehow, she just hasn't grown out of the same few facial expressions :/
Sarah , I am relieved to think that I am not the only one who doesn't like Emma Watson. I am not an actor but I can understand that she has only one facial expression to show all the time and she is not a versatile actress at all. The character Hermoine is good so she is loved I think. She is overrated.
feminism is about women choosing what they want to do with their life freely. it’s okay to be a feminist and wanting to get married and have a beautiful life with a husband and kids if you want it. and it’s HER choice. because women have choice and they should. this stupid idea people and maybe you have about feminism is that women who are feminists should never end up with a man is even against feminism. women HAVE choice. they can do whatever they want. thank you.
@@hutaowi I'm not saying that feminism is a bad thing. I, myself am a feminist and I'm married. The point I was making was that I don't think they hired Emma Watson on acting merit alone.
This movie relies heavily on you knowing about the books and the movies adaptations before it instead of introducing you to your first introduction to this world and having this be your benchmark as it was for me watching the little women 1994 movie which led me to discover the books and fall in love with this world.
I agree especially with your comments about the casting. For myself, the costumes destroyed what credibility this film had left!! The modern hairstyles, the lack of hoop skirts, cotton dresses, the lack of 1870 aesthetic in the characters as adult scenes, the hairstyles!!! It was as if they simply quit on the movie as a period piece.
You sound like an eloquent Selena Gomez. Also as an ardent fan of the book, this review is ❤️ Especially that bit about Marmee! The presence, it just wasn't there. She wasn't supposed to chill, she was supposed to be strong and dignified yet gentle.
I was searching for SOMEONE to coherently articulate all the confused and upsetting feelings I had about this adaptation, and I am so glad I found it! Everyone around me (except my mother and I) was praising the 2019 version and I just didn’t GET it… the 1994 version is still so much more in service to the original work and has more heart. And I was truly excited for this 2019 adaptation when they announced it! I watched the trailer many times and had such high hopes. But all the little things you mentioned completely threw me off- Florence Pugh’s deep voice and irritating portrayal of young Amy… the constant interruption of character arc and emotional beats because of the time jumps… AND GOD, the chattering, anachronistic dialogue!! It felt so wrong to the period and the social norms in place. And I know you didn’t mention it very much, but the HAIR and the costuming was trying WAY too hard to be something it wasn’t. Just completely pulled focus for me. From now on, if I get on a tirade about why this adaptation PALES in comparison to 1994, I will just link people to this video. Brava.
The non-linear storytelling bothered me so much because #1: That's a *really* hard method of storytelling to pull off and only works for a certain kind of story. I mean, you're re-adapting Little Women, not Momento. #2: I watched this movie with my boyfriend and I had to explain what was happening because I knew the story while he didn't and he had no idea what was going on. To me, that just says that this movie can't even stand on its own two feet, which is the sign of a *terrible* adaptation. I also *hated* how it tried to preach this strawman feminist message in a book that was already feminist. Jo, in particular, was already a feminist character and not because she's a tomboy, but because she defies what it means to be a woman in her time by following her dreams no matter what life throws at her. Jo, in this version, just comes across as the annoying straw feminist because she's (say it with me, now) "not like other girls."
@@janebock9281 I think it's over-hyped only because it's about how women are mis-treated and how we used to not have a word in this world, and for that, the writer-director miss perfect Greta Gerwig even accentuated the situation. For example in the book, Jo's mom didn't have a problem with Jo publishing her stories. Obviously, anyone can write a fan-fiction about anything, and i can't see this movie more than a bad fanfiction.
OMG JUST TO SAY UR NAME SUCKS BUT WHY ITS GOOD IS IT CINEMATOGRAPHY SOMETHING YOU MIGHT NEED TO LEARN WITH THAT NAME AND HOW THE FILM IS ABLE TO PLAY WITH EMOTIONS I CANNOT BRING MYSELF TO UNDERSTAND MISTAKES BUT GUESS YOU GOTTA HEAR FROM ONE.
Para gustos colores 🤷🏼♀️ in other words everybody has there own opinion because u don't like it or it has flaws doesn't mean other people can't like it.
THANK YOU. I can't watch the movie without feeling second hand embarrassment seeing Florence Pugh pretend to be a twelve year old. Cringe. The 1994 version will always take the cake -- it's the only thing that even comes close to the book. It also had a female writer and director, but no one talks about that because they used it in the 2019 version as a marketing tool instead of letting the work speak for itself. Also Christian Bale as Teddy is goals.
I now need to watch the new version just to see how much I agree with you! I had a problem with the 1994 version because it disregarded many of the religious aspects. Her parents were not only transcendentalists, they had a deep love of God that showed itself in their sacrificial giving of themselves to the poor, up to near death for their father and actual death for Beth. The Pilgrim’s Progress bits which were crucial to their character development at the beginning of the novel were completely left out, and the transendentalist philosophy (a very real part of their beliefs, but not all) was given sole place of focus. I would have wished for a more balanced presentation of their faith as part of the driving of their actions, rather than ignoring it completely. And the book isn’t preachy about it, so I wouldn’t think the movie should be either. I feel that when an author writes a book that is so seminal to the development of so many young girls, that the movie can only be improved by staying as close as possible to the original. There is a reason that the original is a classic, and that it has withstood the passage of time, the changes in fashion, and the winds of political change. There are core truths in how we relate to one another in family and friendship that are so beautifully encapsulated. I feel part of the reason that Louisa May Alcott never married is that she didn’t find her Professor Bhaer. I feel he is the man that she imagined would suit her best, and since she never found him, she decided to stay single. To introduce him as a character in the movie, and not have her recognize him as her soul mate is just a bit silly. I feel that the whole point is she didn’t meet her Professor Bhaer in real life, an if she had, she would have married him. To introduce him in the movie and not have her marry him is just missing the point. Anyway, a bit of rambling, bu I really appreciated your very thoughtful analysis and critique.
YES I also feel LMA just didn't find her ideal man - Prof Bhaer is actually an amalgamation of different loves in her life, such as Henry Louis Thoreau. But they were both inaccessible to her for different reasons, and she liked her independence too much to settle. The Professor is also such a good character, and I hated the way they butchered him in this film.
Bronson Alcott was a pretty selfish man. Bronson was a radical vegan and the family was pretty malnourished as a result. He tried and failed to establish a vegan commune called Fruitlands. The family could not buy/grow enough food to live sustainably and were so very poor. Bronson was always gone, never being sacrificial enough to make money to support his family well. He wanted to do what he wanted and the women had to fend for themselves for the most part.
This "radical" ending where Jo remains single completely went over my head when I first saw the film. I figured since she seemed so happy with Professor Bhaer at the beginning that they got together since they show him teaching at the school at the end. So I consider the twist to be completely ineffective.
Well I believe that is the point it’s about story telling from a different perspective or a version. You don’t have to have a word by word translation in a movie adaptation or else it would just be bland, it was more realistic for me and it was more lifelike not like the other adaptations.
Agree. Agree. Agree. So much of what I loved about the book was the character development of each of the girls & Laurie. I left the theater feeling so disappointed with how the film handled my favorite book and characters I loved.
...I had instant doubts about this movie when I saw they'd cast Bhaer as young and handsome - doubts that Gerwig understood his character or anything else that mattered - which clearly had merit. I think it's a really good point you made, about the difference between "original authorial intent" and "the characters as they are written," because books change from first to final draft! And even if LMA wanted an unmarried heroine, she still wrote Jo's marriage into the story such that her character arc is coherent. I'm so glad you put it into words! Yes, just so! If Jo was going to be single, that needed to be set up. And it just wasn't; I think some of Gerwig's ideas might've been better suited to a miniseries than a movie, because the way they were executed here was truly to the detriment of just...everyone. You can't make huge changes to the storytelling (let alone the story itself!) without considering how that will impact anything. 🤦🏼♀️
THANK YOU! I disliked this movie...it was awful in so many ways. I thought I was being gas lit by every critic swooning over it. Ugh it was a mess. The new ending is not as clever as it thinks it is. Louisa May Alcott and Little Woman didn’t need help, the story already has a fuck you ending. Little Woman like many books of the time, was released in serial form in the newspaper. Readers were so invested in Laurie and Jo’s romance, that Louisa chose for Jo to refuse him. Then when (as often reported) the editor pushed for Jo to be settled in marriage. Louisa chose to have her settle down with Professor Bhaer and broke all the hearts of the time (still breaks my little modern heart when I read the book or watch the 1994 version) by making it clear that Laurie and Jo were never gonna happen. This is not only bold but also really illustrates the wicked sense of humor that Louisa May Alcott had. Another thing that bothered me, was besides the fact that Florence Pugh was woefully miscast, Greta Gerwig felt the need to “fix Amy” and explain her to the audience to make her more likable, which shows her lack of respect for any depth of character. In the original story and the 94 adaptation Amy (like many of the characters) is not a perfect person and her faults makes us love her more. Her actions are not explained away or justified, they are a natural result of her personality and this is completely lost in this movie. And I don’t want to hear the whole “but woman film directors” argument, Honey Boy was directed by a woman and not recognized half as much as Little Women but it was much better and more emotionally resonant.
I was excited about this too. I NEVER go to the theater. The last time I went was to see Pixar’s Inside Out if that tells you how rarely I go. I went to the theater to see this one because I was so excited. The 1994 version IS my favorite movie, but I was excited for a fresh version. I was not impressed with this one. I felt so much of the dialog was awkward with a strange cadence and an odd mix of modern and historical. I didn’t feel a connection with the characters. Little Amy was just so confusing. And I pretty much agree with all you said. I was shocked this made out so well at the Oscars. I also struggled with some of the casting. I felt like it was kind of a mess. I was sad. Quite sad.
Mess is the perfect way to describe it. I finally watched this adaptation and was so let down by it. Everything you mentioned, from the lack of emotional investment in the characters, to the weird dialogue that didn’t know what time period it wanted to be in, to Florence Pugh’s portrayal of a literal child was so off-putting to me. I love Timothée and I didn’t like his Laurie either. Overall I’m so confused how this got any love from the Oscars and why people adore it so much. Just a badly put together film and I regret renting it lol.
I had never heard of this book (probably because of where I grew up), so being completely new to the material I have to say: I couldn't agree with you more. I saw this movie together with my mother and sister, and we all agreed that it was one of the most boring films we'd ever seen. There is clearly potential in the material, but the directing is horrible and the editing and cinematography just killed any potential drama that was there. I didn't even realize the story was supposed to span many years, and the girls were supposed to be children in the earlier scenes until you told me just now. I really disliked the movie, though I'm glad to hear there are at least better versions out there.
I highly recommend the 1994 version! In that one, I think you get a much better sense of the sisters growing up and maturing into more grounded individuals - something completely lost in this new film! I also found myself so bored while watching it and wondering "...when is this ending?"
To see how a film adaption stands on its’ own merits, I always think it good to take into consideration the viewers with little, prior exposure to the story.
@@crackle6875 yeah, I can't really judge it as an adaptation, but I can vow I went into it with a completely open mind and no prior expectations. I still left confused and disappointed.
she felt lonely and wasn't having second thoughts about marrying him, not really. she didn't love him, she was just yearning for any kind of companionship.
Adam Hendrickson the movie does it differently though- in the book she does have second thoughts, but the move spends MUCH more time having jo focus on that (and adds in her writing a letter agreeing to it) which I think messes up the story. In the book, Jo is incredibly lonely and does have a moment where she thinks she wants to reconsider laurie, but rather quickly after she understands that she is not in love with him and never will be. So, when Laurie and Amy come back, the 3 of them all are able to have a great new connection- in the movie, on the other hand, Jo’s feelings towards Laurie are so dragged out that when Amy and Laurie come back, there’s a tension between the 3 that wasn’t there in the book. Since so much of the story was about Jo and Amy and how they always had conflict but loved each other above everything else, not tying up the Amy/Laurie/Jo thing properly (with Jo being HAPPY for them because she knows her relationship with Laurie is different) makes their entire relationship seem... idk, unfinished? sorry for the absolute rant I just have so many thoughts lol
Im here as someone who really liked the film, but I can definitely see your point of view as a lover of the book! Your thoughts were very well articulated
I was so hyped for this movie because Saoirse plays in it, but we did not even finish the movie. There was no goal, the time switches were badly made and the was just no tension. I was so sad as i had brought the DVD believing it would be amazing...
I watched this review when it first came out, and I came back to watch it again more than a year later, because it's maybe the best film review I've ever seen. I felt exactly the same way about the adaptation and was amazed so many people were praising it. I really appreciate your insight and understanding of both the source material, and the disastrous non-linear editing techniques used here.
I’m currently watching the movie and I hate it. Florence Pugh was NOT a good choice for the role of Amy. Especially trying to play a spoiled 12 year old. What an awful choice. Also, they acted like they did lines of Ritalin before each scene. So rushed and loud and chaotic. Worked against the movie. Hate it!!
Also the time jumping was soooo confusing and totally undercut every character and their arcs like you said! To me the characters turned into a list of facts. Or plot points. I had no idea why characters did things, but also who or what they were. Oh that’s right he’s a professor isn’t he? Also I never knew the father was a preacher, right? So bad. Like it’s trying to be cool by “ subverting expectations “ like GoT did by not letting us see arcs in order (so we can’t predict what might happen) but it just turns a story into a list of facts about a character because there’s no consequences the audience experiences along with those characters experiencing them. Cause and effect gets lost. Same issue with Netflix The Witcher, totally confusing, unnecessary (if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it), and comes off as trying too hard.
Reason for flashbacks: Film has no interest in or respect for the original material and needs an excuse for a cast that is much too old for the book. :(
also something i didn't enjoy - and maybe this won't seem a big deal - but one of jo's important physical characteristics was her hair. it was strong, dark and constantly described as her one true beauty, and in the film, they made her a strawberry blonde? I also have an issue with meg, since she's described as plump in the books and usually the actress playing her is always the skinniest. why not making her curvy or plus-sized? these are details, and I totally agree with everything you said. I just think these would be nice little touches to add to the film that would make it more book accurate.
Wow. Finally somebody said everything I thought was wrong with the 2019 adaptation. Like you, I was so excited for this movie and then so disappointed after. How can everyone else ignore these things and still say the 2019 adaptation was phenomenal and go as far as saying it was the best adaptation?
I thought the scenes were too fast too, and then the characters would suddenly give their inspiring speech. It was like broadway for me lol The scenes weren't developed much to give the watchers some time to emote. I mean the script is good and thats why fans remember love it, but the process of action before they say big lines with lack of scenes ....totally a mess for me. I've been cringing in my seat the whole time especially the Christmas "without presents scene". I don't like the casting of Marmie either, Beth's underdeveloped arc, Meg's personality, hair and fashion. FYI, the costumes were so wrong and the economic status portrayal. (There's a YT video addressing the LW costume btw) I have a lot to say too but thank you for putting everything here, this video gave LW fans justice. ♥️ I love the 1994 version and also got to enjoy the modern LW 2017, it's corny but at least they got to have the character development fair and right for each March sister.
I think I've actually seen that video about the 2019 costumes - it's Micarah Tewers right? That's a great video! But yes, I was very disappointed when I realized the script actually has many lines pulled straight from the book, but the effect of the pacing and delivery meant none of them packed any emotional punch, or they'd just pass you by without you noticing. Thanks so much for watching, I'm glad you enjoyed! ^_^
@@Emiloid did you notice how the writing scenes kept going on and on, just to show how many pages jo can produce in a day or whatever but all the other scenes with heart and morals were all rushed? Such a betrayal to LMA work!
Thanks for the video. I agree almost 100% with your review. The only difference is that I really didn't liked Ronan as Jo (even though her casting is far from the worst in this movie). I just couldn't connect in any way emotionally with that version. The 'innocence' (for the lack of a better word) that is so strongly present in the 1994 version, is sorely missed in this one. When Laurie and Jo danced in a way that is totally not plausible for the time that is being portrayed in the movie I knew that it wouldn't get better. And it definitely didn't. The material is so rich and yet they diluted all of it's strenghts in this adaptation. Also Meryl Streep is a mistake in this movie as is Dern (love Laura but she was horribly miscast here). I'm going to stick with the 1994 version.
Haven't watched this video yet--just wanted to put down my reactions to the movie beforehand. My friend and I were part of the small demographic of watchers who hadn't read the book, and man alive, did it ever feel like it. It took us half the film to understand what was happening with the timeline, and characters that I'm sure are well-loved came off as awful. The Laurie character seemed to be a drunk, annoying, mean-spirited man who was apparently dating three sisters at once, the mother was this random woman in the background who's only character trait was to compliment her daughters and smile fondly, and Amy, not looking like the child she was supposed to be during the book-burning scene, was a full-on psychopath. I had no idea Beth existed for a large portion of the movie. There were editing choices that were downright bizarre (the past-wedding directly after the present-funeral, the random phantom characters reading aloud the letters, a snippet of Jo running that was slowed down with a high framerate, the same exact voice clip used twice when a character repeated himself, etc), weird direction/confusing line delivery, and an ending that I'm still completely confused about. And then I see that it got a 95% on RT, and won/was nominated for several Oscars. It seemed very much like a movie you could only truly enjoy if you knew the book. I didn't really connect with the characters at all, because I could tell that the movie was TRYING to convince me to love them, yet didn't give me much reason to. The one part I liked was when it showed them making Jo's books. I'd have been a lot more interested if the movie was two hours of bookbinding.
It felt like an unfinished and unedited project, because I can see potential in unlinear storytelling and some of the casting choice, but not when you mess up the costumes that could help you to show the time of the events. In terms of casting choice, Emma was a complete miss because I didn't have even the slightest idea that she was the biggest sister, I liked Timothee, but not the fact that he didn't look grown up in the future, I liked Florence, but not the fact that she played a 12 or 13yo, and as a couple they didn't have the exact chemistry that everybody sees. I can see how the Amy&Laurie ship can work, I'm more a fan of that ship rather than Laurie&Jo (and I like and relate to Amy as an established woman more than Jo), but I sense only a small spark of chemistry, not something big. So not even Greta did this couple a justice in my opinion. She was snubbed for a reason.
Thank you so much! I saw this with a group of friends over the holidays, and was shocked to find out that I was the only one who hated it. Then I felt like I was going crazy when EVERYONE ELSE seemed to like it as well! And every point you brought up!!! Yes! To all of it. Even some of the ones I hadn't considered before like Jo's mishandled romance. I bothered me when I watched it and you put words as to why! The only other thing I would add that pissed me off was that for how confusing the movie is set up, an annoying amount of dialog was spent spelling things out to the audience rather than letting us infer for ourselves. 2 examples I can think of right off the bat: 1. Beth plays the piano at Mr. Lawrence's house for the first time. He hears the music, he comes down the stairs to listen and begins to cry. = Lawrence's dead daughter used to play and he is reminded of her when Beth plays. Jump to later in the movie when he says that point blank to Jo. Now granted, I will give that might need to be stated for those who haven't seen previous adaptations or read the book. So let's try on no. 2 for size... 2. An outdoor wedding is being set up on the lawn. Everyone is getting dressed for Meg's wedding. Meg is clearly in a bridal gown. What does she exposit to Jo right off the jump? "It's my wedding day." Nothing was left to be inferred, and was all spoonfed to the audience in exposition. Just felt very condescending
Even in 1965, NOBODY wore their hair long and loose. Our mamas had short permed hair and we little girls had our hair in braids or pony tails. By 1970 we girls, had long loose hair. The costumes are awful. People took great pains to look presentable and would not be caught dead wearing the rags these little women wear. The characters are paper cutouts, not real people with depth of feeling and emotion. The reasons little women has remained popular for over a century is the character development. "Little Women" could be set in World War II America and still be true. The constant jumping back and forth between present and memory was stressful, akin to listening to someone who is senile mix up the present and past when speaking. The film was awful and a waste of my time.
For me, the main problem I had with this film is that I just couldn't take most of the actors in their roles seriously, especially Timothee and Florence as Laurie and Amy. 😅 I mean Timothee looked like a little boy playing dress up and unfortunately that's all I could see him as even though I'm sure he's a great actor. And Florence has such a deep voice that it's jarring to see her pretending to be a child Amy. Overall, I pretty much agree with all your critiques and that's why my favorite is still the 1994 version though nothing tops the book itself!
Micarah Tewers has a great video on why the movie's costumes and hair were terrible and didn't deserve an Oscar: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_sBqqERMblo.html She has a good point when she says that the bad costuming makes the non-linear story very confusing for anyone not familiar with the novel, because it all looks like it's set in the same time and none of the characters age. I don't know why this version got so much acclaim, and I'm glad I'm not the only one. IMO, the 1994 adaptation was almost perfect, and I also enjoyed the 2017 miniseries a lot, but this one felt so wrong in so many ways. I wanted to like it -- I like a lot of the actresses involved -- but it just had too much working against it. It's nice to know I wasn't the only one who was disappointed.
This is a very thoughtful review. I did not care for most of this 2019 version. I favor the 1994 version for the exact reasons you pointed out. AND the movie should be a portrayal of the book, yes with some artistic license, but NOT what you THINK the author really wanted. No one can know this. It is about the book.
You are my soul sister in this regard. *I HATE THIS VERSION!!!* Thank you for sharing this!!!! I agreed with you on the jumpy timeline, the costumes were vomitous, the characters were not really reflective of the characters in the novel. Laura Dern's hair is sooooo wrong for the period. The neon scarf on Meg? WHAT? Timothee looks like he's a Freshman in high school. He's a waif. It's just ALL wrong and calculated to not tell the story but to appeal to a young female audience. In doing so, it sells the audience short. It assumes they can't relate to someone in the past. So poor. The 1994 version is spot on...costumes, dialogue, character development, HAIR, emotion.....It's perfection.
Coming from someone who hasn't read the book nor seen any of the other adaptations (don't kill me), I have to say, you mentioned a lot of the criticisms that I had about the film. Especially when it comes to casting - you mentioned every single thought and complaint I had about the casting (but much more eloquently than I could have)!
i don't want to delegitimize the feelings of the people who loved this movie but it really boggles the mind how one can say "2019 is superior because they put more focus on not-jo characters" but what's even the point of that if you're not going to commit to exploring all their characters thoroughly?
The director got the most basic thing wrong in this movie. Jo’s hair is supposed to be brown not blondish red. You telling me no one could go out and get a box of hair dye? It was like watching eragon when they didn’t get the elf’s hair color right. Irritatingly lazy 😑
YES! Thank you!! Amy is supposed to be the only blonde March sister, the other three have brown hair. Why the hell are Jo and Beth strawberry blonde in the 2019 version??
I am absolutely blown away. I love the book and all the beautiful character arcs that happen and all the little things that most of the movies leave out. I knew when this new movie came out (and the cast list) that it wasn’t going to be good at all and an insult to LMA and classic lit. Most people thought I was being a snob and anti-new ideas and art, but remakes are meant to have accuracy and not simply reflect the current moods of Hollywood.
Yes it was very apparent to me that this movie was made to play to current feminist sentiment rather than telling a coherent story that's true to LMA. The book is quite long and not everything can be included, but I was really taken aback by how this film deliberately minimized some very important elements of the story to make its point
What I hate the most was Amy's character. She has no remorse for her actions. Greta literally rewrote Amy's character. 1994 did a better job in my opinion. Amy went to Europe because she was more educated than jo, in addition to her love for art being left aside. Or his good influence on Laurie is nonexistent. The worst was how she marries to save her family. Her fault is her vanity. Marrying Laurie for love is important. Not to mention how she complains the entire movie. It's the fact that people say "That Amy did justice" is stupid in my opinion.
I agree with pretty much everything you said and I'm SO glad I found this analysis because I honestly couldn't understand all the praise this film got when it first came out. I think the only point of yours that I disagreed with is the casting of Florence Pugh as Amy. I actually thought that Pugh brought an extra depth to Amy that hasn't been given to her in the past (specifically the scene where she talks about marriage being an economic proposition, although you did say you also liked that scene). However, I have no idea what compelled the filmmakers to have a 24-year-old Florence Pugh, with her Lauren Bacall type voice, also play a 12-year-old Amy. So much of the film was just mediocre in my opinion. As a musician, I also have to comment on the film's score. It was so dull and uninspiring especially compared to the one from the 1994 version.
I can never understand what people see as so extraordinary in Alexandre Desplat. Most of his scores (that I have heard) sound like RU-vid background music.
There's so much stylistic choices in the film, for others it may seem too ambitious and unnecessary and others may understand it as a way of giving the film much more personality, but the thing is... there are already a lot of film adaptations of this book, I don't want another that just goes by the texts because you can see older adaptations for that! I want something new, something timely because I know a few years from now, there will be another adaptation that will foreshadow the ones that came before it. I think Greta's stylistic choices gave the film that freshness feel to it, and it introduces a classic book in a not boring way. I respect your opinions of this film, you make valid points, though I don't necessarily agree with them :)
