I think I still prefer the Greta Gerwig version. I completely agree with the principles and concepts you outlined. However, the medium of film gives us an additional variable: the actors themselves. The BBC version definitely acted BIGGER, but it's a bit over-acting, and the Gerwig version, being a little more grounded, is easier to watch because the acting is so great that it pulls me into the scene more. However, in a novel, you don't have actors; you have the imagination, so I completely agree this is the way to go for writing overall.
I definitely find the 1994 version with Winona Ryder as Jo to be the most emotionally engaging, aesthetically pleasing, and well casted of all the versions I've seen thus far. I rewatch it every year and the scene where Jo's book is burned and her reaction is far more visceral than both the options in this video. That said, I do also love the BBC version :)
Ronan and Pugh are just so good. And Scanlen as Beth. But Emily Watson (in the BBC version) always elevates a film. Both versions are both great. And though it was hard to think of Pugh that young because she has such a mature voice, she somehow pulls it off. Ronan and Pugh are just so darn good overall. By the way, I agree with your whole video though. :) The BBC version handles that scene better.
I absolutely love this! It also serves to show just how close sisters are, because she knew PRECISELY how to hurt her sister, there was no scheming, no contemplation, she went for the SOUL.
The 1994 version of the story also has a really cool juxtaposition of Jo's anger and Amy's regret, which I think is much more realistic and relatable. How often do we do something in anger only to regret it in the aftermath? It also helps that Kirsten Dunst was an actual child playing Amy.
agreed. having one actress play both younger and older amy does such a disservice to the story, this scene in particular. i literally cannot take the 2019 version seriously because florence pugh looks older than saoirse ronan to me
I have to agree. Furthermore, at the risk of putting myself in the crosshairs, I’ve only seen one version of Little Women, one time and it was the 1994 version with Winona Rider. It was years ago and to be honest, this kind of story is not my thing. I have to say that on a scale of more likely realism, burning a book that someone you love has been writing - when you know how much it will hurt them - should be in reaction to something more egregious than big sister telling little sister she can’t go out for the evening with her - even if she’s a jerk about it. This whole reaction seems off to me unless there is a deeper antagonistic dynamic going on between those two sisters that I’m not remembering in the story? And yes, some regret should have been present to make the scene more real…as most sisters who do have good relationships would be remorseful for taking such a drastic form of revenge. Cuz there definitely was no back up draft on a thumb drive or on the cloud 😂😂 That said, Abbie’s lesson was clearly played out in the writing and the performances. There is a big difference between the two versions emotional roller coaster-wise. My problem is with the concept and context of the scene and not with A.E.’s point. ☺️
🌸 I’m sorry but I agree with video for writing First one was too flat & awfully boring whereas the second one captured my attention and moved me with the characters like I was there My mom had 8 sisters & they didn’t fight, neither physically or verbally I have zero sisters & 2 brothers and I am the fighter lol Life isn’t always like a firecracker but when you write it has to take the audience on a journey
A mix of the two would be great. The first one really feels like siblings fighting. Which often does go from 0 to 100 due to past resentment. The build up in the second one was great but the fight part seemed lack luster, she didn’t feel or act mad enough to me. Right after seeing her burnt paper it should’ve been one look in her sisters direction and then jumped her immediately like the first scene.
In my opinion, I would've written Amy to feel a lot more regretful/sheepish after her sister came back home with the candy bar, like that "uh oh" moment where she realizes she stepped way out of line.
As an actress and writer I can argue that the actors' choices impacted a lot of the emotional dynamic in both scenes. I think in the adaptation if some of the actors choices were different it could've changed the emotional dynamic massively even with the limited dialogue. Also the actors choices and the change in atmosphere in the BBC version is what gave it more emotion.
Directing also plays a role in the results here. Gerwig could've instructed the actors to crescendo and to have differing emotions, differing discoveries develop through their acting. That's part of a directors job, to help actors find the true character and emotion and release it.
@@beebuzz959 Honestly I think Gerwig’s priorities for the 2019 adaption were to elevate the realism of the novel (and thusly it’s quiet feminist themes). The rhythm of her story, despite being an achronological reworking of the narrative, flits back and forth through the chapters of these women’s adolescence as though we are merely sitting in the room with them. The sequence of scenes thusly begins as though we understand the context behind it and the thoughts going through the girls heads already. Pugh isn’t playing a woman who communicates herself and makes good choices, she’s playing a young Amy, and her emotions therefore move at a fast, realistic pace, and her motives for the scene come out messy and childish. Jo is no different in this regard. And as a sister myself, Ronan and Watson couldn’t possibly be more true to their role of older sisters, one scathing and uncompromising to her little sibling at all costs, and one nurturing and wise as she balances them both. It was like being seen when Jo just flung herself at Amy, because the audience doesn’t need to be coddled; They know Jo was silently winding up a shot from the moment she looked up from the drawer, even without raising her voice. The cuts still build tension and the angle of Gerwig’s vision prevails: That of authentic, messy, realistic sisters wrought with fiery agency and searing ties to one another. For example, watch the BBC version. While I’m a believer in theatre > film, this acting style, which is being utilized, does nothing to impart a sense of duplicity in the viewer. I get the impression that the actors are moving line to line, almost third circle, representing their characters emotions by directly communicating them with the audience and thusly doing just that: acting. I don’t see sisters, I see blocking and a script and players on a stage. They speak exposition, and they hand hold the audience through the emotional journey as if we didn’t ask to be here. And for that I think Gerwig’s concept for the framing of Little Women (2019) wins over and over again.
@@KekerikiGreen I saw Gerwig's version ( not the BBC one), and though I appreciate how she personalized it more to how Jo probably was, the film overall wasn't that great. I've seen much better versions that were much more emotional. Especially having studied directing, and having done some myself, I find Gerwig failed in assisting the actors to help the film be what it deserved to be. I think you can bring out the pro-feminist qualities and also create a moving picture. If you can't do that, you've failed at half of it. I find her version only mediocre in that regard. I didn't cry. I didn't really even care if the characters got what they wanted either. She had an amazing opportunity, and she could've done so much better with it.
@@beebuzz959 Fair enough. I deeply understand Jo’s arc myself but that honestly probably comes from a deep kinship with Ronan’s portrayal of the character. I find the focus of the 2019 films attention in that regard to be really interesting, the way it sorts the beats of the film into an order that makes you consider scenes as having different importance to the story than before (as long as we follow traditional story beats here). I think the way she’s able to draw parallels and knit scenes that were far apart together forces you to admire things in a different light, or assemble questions in your mind that later get answered thanks to who she chooses to show and where. Consider if she told the tale flat, like before. Her directing may then seem strange. But take Beth’s death, for example-putting her revealed to be okay next to her revealed to be dead in the exact same shot sequence and blocking, only with different visual tones? Devastating. For me, I wouldn’t have cried had she done it the typical way. But instead, her ideas revive the overdone material. That’s just my opinion though. It might be worth a focussed rewatch! EDIT: Ironically, this channel does a great job at outlining the scientific structure of a good story. The three acts, the dopamine cycle of a reader, etc. With all these in mind, it explains how Little Women 2019 simply just works as a film and how, when you’re adapting anything, what you’re doing is arguing to the audience what about it was important in the first place-like for example, breaking the fourth wall at the end of your film by cutting between a character agreeing to marry off her female protagonist, and herself running off with some unimportant man.
Maybe it’s an unpopular opinion, but although the 2019 version isn’t as cinematic and dynamic from a narrative perspective, it kinda feels raw and ugly, like how siblings *would* fight. I’ve got an older and a younger sibling, and that scene felt pretty real for me. A lot of the time, the emotion is festering underneath and explodes in a matter of seconds. Maybe the direction could have been better to convey that, but idk something about that scene just hit for me.
Yes, yes! As a little sister, Amy was exactly me. I WANTED to feel dramatic and serious and vindictive. Amy very obviously is frustrated at being constantly dismissed by Jo, and does something that throwing a tantrum can't do. It's a lot more ugly, and even when the older sibling gets angry and the younger is forced to apologise, most times they feel little regret, that their actions were justified. The responsibility is on the eldest to forgive, and less for the younger to apologise, because the younger can't truly grasp the entirety of what they've done on a personal level. And that's just sibling life. Petty disagreements and forced apologies and cat fights and sometimes, learning and feeling very little. Gerwig captured that far more realistically than either this abc version or the 1990s version. Sometimes, sibling spats aren't as deep for one party than they are another. We don't need Amy showing a deep guilt, we don't big swelling scores or drawn out monologues or varied cuts. Because they're still sisters at the end of the day, and in the end they will all get on with life, just as the Marches do. *Also want to point out, in the scene before the confrontation between Jo and Amy, Jo is being specifically and purposefully spiteful to Amy, shutting her down cruelly and on purpose, to elicit further reaction from Amy, so she has more reason to shut her down, the cycle continues. Jo felt it was her right in that moment for Amy to be upset and angry and to miss out on an event she was going to, because that is what big sisters commonly feel like. Sometimes we want to spite our siblings, especially when we're in a crabby mood, or the sibling has already been annoying beforehand. Jo understood what Amy was feeling, but she didn't care that she was. When Jo asked Amy if she had the book and Amy started gloating in her lie, she knew and was furious. Sibling spats like this, there is nothing else to do but claw each other's eyes out.
@@melindawolfUS fair point. I do love dramaticized things, in fact my favorite genre in fantasy, where everything's at least a little unrealistic. I just really liked that scene I guess, and there's others who also enjoyed it. I wasn't trying to say that the point she makes in this video is wrong-- in fact I agree with her that emotional dynamics are important--I was just saying that there was something that ended up being effective for me, and I wanted to contribute to the discussion. Apologies if I came off as disagreeing or ignoring her points 😅
In the book, Amy and Jo squabble in other parts in a way that isn't so intense. The importance of this scene is that this fight went beyond normal sibling bickering. They actually hurt each other this time, and struggle with forgiveness.
The second clip brought me to tears. The sisterly love and conflict, the surprise, the subtle shifts in Amy's shame and smugness, are all incredible. I'm so impressed by this. I've never seen the 2017 version, but I have seen the 1990s version and I've seen the Greta Gerwig one, and I hated it compared to the one made in the 90s.
Little Women is my favorite book. And the 2019 version was my favorite but I will have go watch the BBC Version, thanks for all your help. I am now on my second book.
I find this framing really helpful. Catherine Nichols wrote an essay for Jezebel a few years back - "One Weird Trick That Will Make Your Writing Addictive" - in which she argues that good storytelling is like a game of billiards, with the decisions and feelings of each character ricocheting off that of others. She maintains that women are typically better at this emotionally dynamic, up-and-down method of telling stories because they tend to be more attuned to the subtleties of social behavior. That essay changed my whole approach to writing but I've never seen anyone else frame it in those terms, until now.
My wife is a published author and I beta read all of her stuff. She's a wonderful writer and I thoroughly enjoy her stories. What you just said about women writing the emotional dynamics and all the ups and downs is certainly evident in her storytelling and is one of the things I enjoy about her writing. Also, that unexpected thing that Abbie talks about is another element I enjoy. I feel very fortunate to have a spouse who has written and published several books available to help me with my own stories. And now, I have this RU-vid channel too. 😁
Abbie, you have articulated something that I have felt and been frustrated with in a bad script vs. a good script for YEARS! Thank you for breaking this down and really analyzing it. Excellent video!
A few thoughts to add to your excellent advice, Abbie. While writing my book, I ran into a dilemma early on, where I needed to portray strong emotional reactions; my first attempts resulted in dastardly "purple prose." Researching this further, I realized British films always evoked strong emotions...and I discovered why; they intentionally understate, creating a vast chasm between what is happening vs. what one is feeling. For me, this is the right way to go. Further thoughts: Years back, I attended a writing class given by Robert McKee, author of the book, Story. He spoke of "emotional charges" which are found within scenes. In his estimation--and I've found this to be valid, if there is no change in emotional charge within a scene, there is no scene. He further breaks down scenes into "beats." He was referring to dialogue, whereby each character's response is likened to a beat, and each beat, back and forth between characters, results in that change in emotional charge. Thank you, Abbie, for tutoring me through your videos. I have a long way to go, but the journey is worth it.
The BBC version is a much better ride. I love how you compared the dynamic range to music. That drove it home for me. Thanks, Abbie! Just what I needed to hear and see today.
Absolutely brilliant to bring sound into conveying emotions. You're spot on! Sound is the first sense that gets "plugged in" so to speak. We start hearing before we're born, so it's a very primal way for us to navigate the world. The "circle of talent" for films fully encompasses everything from sound design (such as folly), voice overs, music, etc. All of it goes into this subtle art of pushing emotions in audiences. For instance, the sound of alarms blaring, footsteps running across metal platforms, the creaks and moans of a submarine, the hisses of air in the background, incoherent barking of orders are all done in service to make you feel anxious. The sound alone gives us the impression the sub is in trouble and our tension is heightened by nature of the camera placing us in what we think is a sinking ship. Without those extra sounds, the story doesn't land with the same gravitas. The absence of sound can also be used strategically. Either total silence or being particular about the types of sound. Studio Ghibli films use this technique, but so do non-animated films like Saving Private Ryan. Specifically, the Storm of Beaches of Normandy scene where we even get ringing in our ears and no music and other sounds get muted. This puts us in the perspective of the soldiers themselves and becomes emotionally resonating, something that really sinks in after the battle when the music finally does come in. Great video :DDD
Honestly, I don’t see the problem, that’s how sibling fights go, no matter how big or small the problem is. This is the most accurate fight scene I’ve ever scene in television. And I think it didn’t have to be emotional to work, because it’s actually relatable.
This was good and gives me some ideas for my rewrite. The issue I have with Abby's videos is that she uses movies and TV shows for examples rather than showing good writing vs bad writing. If you have issues with dialog, how do you learn to write good dialog from a movie where emotions are communicated visually? Reading and watching are worlds apart and I wish she would focus more on how to create a written scene with this kind of impact.
while I definitely agree with the differences you pointed out, being a screenwriter, I find that features are vitally different from miniseries in screen time. bbc had literally more time (even if not much more) to develop certain scenes and sequences, and that is crucial when creating better dynamics. great work though!
As the youngest of three daughters in my family, I sympathize so much with Amy in Gretta's version. Her going into the scene already knowing she'll be denied is how I've felt so often; you keep hoping that maybe they'll take pity on you this time, but they deny you again. Even the way she was whining rather than being less childish about it is accurate, because you think, "If I keep it less serious than it actually feels for me, then it won't hurt as badly when they reject me." If you had to truly ask them for something, with no other facades put on and they reject you, then they're not just rejecting the childish mask you put up, but they're rejecting YOU as a person. You get to this point where you've almost completely given up, and it's agonizing to go through AND to watch, so I really liked how it was done. Another thing was the way she had no real build up; she could tell that her time to try persuade them to bring her with was almost up, and rather than going through all these different stages that could take too long, she goes straight to "Please take me. I'll die if you don't."
In Gretta´s version i was actually kinda on Amy´s side. The argument and emotions felt so real, as did the older sisters just ignoring the youngest and not taking her seriously.
I have to disagree a little...the 2019 fight in my opinion was realistic to people who have sisters or brothers. And sometimes confrontation or fights are so fast and full of anger that doesn't let you to have a "careful and thinking" way of being. I actually believe that the 2019 were sisters instead of the other versions because of the way they speak to each other and the fight was very realistic to people who actually had confrontation with siblings, even tho I have to say that the fight was a little unrealistic because siblings don't have problem tearing you apart. That's why the other version is even less realistic cause the "talk" and the fight is almost polite and classy...real siblings fight don't look like that, they supposed to look childish and even clumsy....that's why 2019 catch me.
I think it is important, also, to remember the difference in the way siblings would communicate in times past versus the way they communicate now. I see a great deal of difference in how my brother and I communicated and how my grandchildren communicate.
I agree that it may be closer to realism, but in my opinion, that doesn’t necessarily mean it is as effective in terms of writing. One of the worst things that you can do in a novel is focus on ‘realism’ rather than good writing. Good writing is interesting and compelling precisely because it isn’t what people experience every day. Think about talking to many self-absorbed people - your mind starts wandering halfway through their stories about their mundane inter office politics. The only way to make it interesting is if the main character has unique, biting, sassy, retorts, which isn’t a ’realistic,’ everyday response. If you fill half a page with dialogue like, “hello - how are you - fine - how are things - oh, been busy…” people will throw your story down. If James Bond got shot just as much as he shot others, if he didn’t have flings with women because he was busy on a mission, and if he didn’t have snazzy taglines, people wouldn’t be as invested in the story. And in most cases, watching normal siblings fight is uncomfortable, makes the siblings look bad, and it’s boring. It’s usually petty, minor, and not worth spending time on. Theres a lot of parents out there who just want to screech, “oh, shut up already!” I would argue that even books that are based on real life and real people are based on people who do things that are in no way ordinary. People who led a movement that changed the world, something most people wouldn’t have the courage to do. Even then, it’s presented with faster pacing and extremely selective bits of high-tension dialogue. The recent film, “The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare,” is based on true events. I’m not calling it a perfect film, but it captures and keeps the attention because the scenarios are insane, and so are the characters. If you met the main character in real life, walking into your office and just taking stuff, you likely wouldn’t like them very much; but on the screen, that devil-may-care attitude is captivating. Why? Because we often admire and love to watch characters who do things that we would never have the guts to do. If you acted that way in real life, you would be socially ostracized. People would be tired of it. But people love to think of an imagined life where they could act that way. Not a realistic life that reflects how most people act - trapped by their fears and limiting beliefs.
@@winspiff I think you hit it well, here. Good writing and "realism" are not the same thing--more, "realism" is not really what writing or any art is really out to evoke. Art is out to evoke emotions, full stop. Reality is not a contrivance while art is. Art alludes to reality; it's not capable of, nor is it its intention to, re-create it. Emotions are internal; art has no choice but to hit those emotions by externalizing them for the audience. That takes artifice. As I've noted here, the notion that "realism" is preferred bespeaks an observer of art, not an artist. Participants will know what I'm talking about, here.
The photographer in me can't unsee how much better your second example is shot in the way that the faces are readable at all times while in the first one everything is just so mushy.
The 1994 version is my favourite the 90s cinematography always makes me feel warm and homely, and the acting is very heartfelt, and actually having amy be a child makes her actions more forgivable, though that version does make adult Amy very tactless around jo, whereas she got much better and less selfish as an adult in the book good wives there is an entire chapter dedicated to showing Amys selfless, gracious and kind actions when slighted by her rich snobby neighbours that is the reason her aunt invites her to Europe instead of jo.
Amazing as always, and I totally see the point for story telling. However, objectively, not as an author, I do appreciate Greta’s version as it feels very realistic of how sister dynamics play out. Having sisters myself I can honestly testify that there are days where our moods do not build up and change a whole ton in a scene because we are already at odds with each other, frustrated and defensive against the whiny.
Exactly. I certainly do remember that we could just fly at each other without any real buildup. (Funnily and on a related note, sometimes because she stole one of my books and handled it like her own books; just left it lying around somewhere where it was at great danger of water damage. At times because she read through my diary and even made notes on the side...) But by gosh, that slap in the other version by the older sister felt so thrilling. I felt that in my older sister soul. I like her well enough now, but might still be harboring some resentment over the fact that when I flew off the handle people in the family immediately backed her up, but when she did, well, I was the older, I was supposed to just... Bear with it. Plus, why wasn't I wiser and prevent her getting agitated which led to her harassing/hitting ME? But god save my soul if I dared retaliate. (Not even a year. Not even a year of age difference.)
I have quite a few comments on your assessment, some thoughts of my own (as the oldest of three girls, all homeschooled, ages 17, (almost) 15, and 9). This is long. I apologize. I just wanted to fully analyze the video here (can you tell I'm in the middle of a college-level comp class???) The emotional buildup of Gretta's version isn't as good, I will agree. And the BBC argument, especially the latter half, really does strike a chord with the viewer. It puts you on edge emotionally. The first is definitely too fast paced. But I like how the first half of the argument is presented in Greta Gerwig's interpretation. It's been forever since I read the book, so I'm not going to compare it to canon writing. On the topic of Amy being a whiny brat: My sisters fight all the time. Even before they are speaking, they are annoyed with each other over something. (They have their good moments and more neutral moments, but oftentimes the older (14) is bothered by something the younger (9) is doing, and the younger gets defensive and annoyed at being bossed around. As we know from the story, Jo and Amy's prior relationship up to this point hasn't been shown to be fantastic. They're sisters, meaning they're on each other's nerves 24/7. As a result, Amy WON'T expect for Jo to say yes to see the show, therefor she goes to Meg. (Note that even Meg is wanting to say yes, to appease Amy, but she's not fighting on either side.) I can confirm that this is true for my family too. I get along better with my sisters than they do with each other. The concept of this scene, in theory, is actually really good, I think. BUT, the pacing isn't great. Things feel too rushed. There are no pauses. There is no nuisance or subtlety in emotions. As a result, without that "push and pull" of emotions, there is no breathing space. There is no tenseness. I feel like Greta's version is more realistic. As such, it doesn't pack that punch that BBC holds. We've seen this argument a million times between our own siblings. It's nothing new. (Also might I mention, I love Beth's statement of, "I can teach you chords on piano". Such a peacekeeper. And how Amy bites back in anger. When the younger sibling is so angry that they get mad at everyone. Again, an experience I'm familiar with.) The second part escalates too quickly. It's no surprise that Jo assumes the worst, but I feel like her reaction feels forced (decent down the stairs with little to no expression on her face). Her range of emotions isn't as visible. It's very subdued at first. But I DO like the way Amy's character was handled. Though she isn't smug about burning the book, Amy is still bitter. She's still frustrated that things didn't go her way, and that sours the mood of the rest of the family. The BBC version feels a bit more "rose tinted" to begin with. Amy seems like a completely different character, more optimistic and happy. Jo still doesn't want her to tag along, but she's using more reasoning for it. I feel like this version fails at really capturing Jo and Amy's sibling-hate relationship at the beginning, which is why I prefer Gretta's version (in this case). It's less emotion-packed to begin with, but it DOES set up the second half better because Amy so deeply wants to join in. She seems less like an annoying younger sister, which is why Jo's argument is less of "I don't want you to tag along" and more "you can't tag along". Which also makes Amy's comment of "I hate you" feel more dramatic and unwarranted. It doesn't feel like sibling rivalry as much so, and it seems like Jo would have let Amy join along if complications hadn't been there to begin with, such as the seating issue. (There's something about, "you annoy me, go away, don't join me to the movies" that feels so familiar to arguments at my house, so I'm a bit biased in preferring it.) BBC's approach to the second half is definitely better. Jo's realization of what Amy did, to Amy's reaction and shock at Jo being reasonable when she first got home (giving her the chocolates). I don't think that the plot itself (motivations of characters specifically) is better or worse necessarily. Jo in Gretta's version still feels annoyed with Amy's presence, and Amy in Gretta's version still feels like she's in the right. Jo in BBC's version feels like she's already grown from the experience, or at least, cooled off a lot. And Amy in BBC's version is having to process that, while also STILL justifying herself and making herself the victim (so burning the book isn't wrong). Both sides are incredibly plausible in real life. Two different resolutions to arguments. (Jo moving on and forgiving vs Jo returning home and her mood souring as she sees Amy again.) I don't like how Amy takes responsibility RIGHT AWAY for burning the papers. I understand she's proud of herself, but I would like to have seen a little conflict of guilt, like "oh, Jo's sorry and is trying to make up, but I burnt her book" and then with Meg appeasing her, that further guilt that "oh, I got what I wanted, but also I needlessly punished Jo". Emotionally, that could have been fun to see play out. (Granted, the scene might go on for too long. Guess that's what fanfiction's for...) I like the sort of denial Amy has towards burning the book and Jo accusing her in Gretta's version, as it really shows that they both see the worst in each other. But I do feel that the build-up to that argument could have been better handled. That being said, this is my analysis. I like the plot of Gretta's version better, but I like the dialogue, pacing, and acting of the BBC's version. A mix of both would have been nice. But I would happily watch both versions. Each interpretation of the scene is unique and feels like a different story, in a way. Additional note: arguments could look like both examples. My sister's do have other issues regarding handling emotions well (ie. ADHD). Different characters will handle conflict differently, so you must consider their range of emotions, their past experiences with other characters, and how they would most likely react to a situation not going their way.
On any other other channel you would have been “ticketed” by the YT Comment Length Patrol. Only on Abbie’s Emmons’ channel would a comment this long be thumbs upped - and not be subjected to worthless negativity about the length and nothing about the content. This is just another reason why Abbie’s channel and the community she has built is so awesome! I actually somewhat disagree with your assessment that the action and reaction in this scene was reasonable and realistic. My sister is seven years older than I am. I never had any real expectation of being invited to go out with her for the evening when she was going out with friends. Nor did I ever ask to. So this scene hits me differently. That said, I still enjoyed reading your comment and found your perspective all the more interesting because it’s different than mine. That’s what story does - bring out the various perspectives 😄
No, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I don't have sisters but have a younger brother and the "made-up-mind before actual fight" is true. Of course, there's the fact that BBC's holds the younger sibling's card of using excitement and "pretty please" in hopes of winning a mostly lost argument. Her switch to betrayed is natural for a spoiled child's tantrum when she doesn't get what she wants and the smirk in the fight after they return and gift her the tickets feels like a "Well… you fixed your mistake too late, you must accept the consequences of crossing me. I'll take the tickets anyway". Whilst Joe is trying to make amends and appease her just to find "the brat" has ruined her work for "a play she's already bought her tickets for" and is not even a little sorry. Greta's version has a whiny girl using the younger sibling card of annoying and whining until they give in, but also doesn't work on Joe, which end up switching the energetic trial to frustrated anger and throwing an object. In this version there's no "fix it" amend from Joe and her finding out the book is missing. When she doesn't find her work there's a time of reaction, we don't get to spend with her, the obvious deduction of Amy taking it. Her passive-aggressive short fuse was perfect, is the boiling anger she was holding in upstairs and when descending to the main floor just to be lit by Amy's revelation. As a sibling the "Has anyone seen my book?" would've been better as a "Where is my book, Amy?", because it doesn't play and means business and suits the lashing out better. In the end, I like both because they look like situations in their lives, maybe one day Amy tries one card or the other, in any way stays in character. Same for Joe, in the first one she has a reactive response to the sudden scorched paper of her novel and lashing out, in contrary the second one presents an active response to not finding her book and deciding to confront Amy. Needless to say, I have no empathy towards Amy in any case, but I wouldn't have hit her. I would've stopped talking to her altogether, but that's just me. Amy needed real consequences.
@@BeAWritter I would have to disagree with you on the hitting part. In both cases, Amy burned Jo's book out of spite, and in both scenes, it's due to Amy being a brat over not going to some play. The first one is pretty much walking on eggshells to a ticking time bomb; they're pretty much at each other's throats; as it was mentioned in the other analysis, it felt faster, and the characters were stereotyped as big siblings vs younger siblings. The second one, however, shows that there was a reason for Amy to not go. It wasn't out of spite. It was because they were invited, and if Amy were to tag along, it would become an inconvenience, a fifth wheel in this scenario. The motive was still there for Amy to burn Jo's book, and normally, there are bad feelings on both ends of the spectrum in arguments. Jo felt bad for Amy and was willing to make it up to her, but after she did a nice thing and found out that Amy went the extra mile to burn the book, there was that moment of disbelief before the explosion, and in that moment when you yourself feel that you have been wronged, you don't look the other way. You want to make them know what they did was wrong, and the one slap Amy got is only a fraction of the pain Jo felt. As someone who has been through situations where the feelings I felt were anger and hurt, I know the two outcomes that would commonly happen. Either you let the hurt take control, and you cry, or you feel anger, which comes out like Jo's did. I'll have to give this a watch to get a better grasp of the whole story, but in this scene, Amy was not in the right for burning Jo's book over a play that they intended on taking her to the following week.
@@BeAWritter I agree with you - but I’ll have to disagree on having no empathy for Amy. As a younger sibling who developed BPD due to emotional neglect (partially because of my older sister), the anguish I felt from the daily rejection I was submitted to was unbearable. It often got to a point where I would want to do anything to hurt those who hurt me, even if I deeply loved them. I’d still be deeply remorseful of whatever misdeed I had done in retaliation - but I wouldn’t always show this both in an attempt of self-preservation, and also due to how intense my anger was. What Amy did was despicable (as an artist myself), but I also deeply empathize with her.
Right?! I didn’t buy into the emotions for the BBC version. This scene just made me hate Amy as a character. The BBC felt like more forced dramatic technique. Greta’s version felt more like a real argument with my sister. What I like about Greta’s version is that it felt like real relationships between sisters. BBC felt like actors acting. Greta’s version felt like sisters living together.
No, it really isn't about "preference." One works, one doesn't. Full stop. More, the Gerwig version really is not "more realistic." It's very mannered and actorly. The BBC version hits emotions far more powerfully and captures therefore the actual feelings that would realistically be felt. Genuine footage of the actual event as might be found in a secret recording would not give any context and might land like Gerwig's but here's the thing--Gerwig gave that context! And it was equally flat. The final conflict depicted was not supported as was the BBC version. But that's how art works--it's an abbreviation and a telegraphing of what would otherwise never be picked up. It works incredibly well on the page--but to just watch? No. Emotions are simply not seen, being internal. So, again, Gerwig's final fight might work to look like the real thing might have, but literally none of the rest would. BBC's laid the groundwork and earned the crescendo. But then, this is all really a master class for actual creatives, not casual fans, so, your mileage not only might but for sure will vary. TLDR; if Gerwig's landed better for you, then you're not in the field. BBC's is instructive for those in the field.
@magnus_mode so many words but the movie version still feels like sibling arguing and the other as a play. And at the end of the day it should be enjoyable for casual watchers
@@magnus_mode i agree, the more realistic portrayal explained by bbc should be modeled after for example of good framing. indeed our subjective tastes could lead us to appreciate gerwig’s but it’s definitely not material as quality to teach in class and that’s why it ultimately falls off.
@@magnus_mode its a movie. What works and what doesn't is subjective by its very nature and you are not going to invalidate someone's opinions with your pretentiousness. Its a matter of preference.
Honestly, as one of four sisters (we share some traits and dynamics with the March sisters too so we relate greatly with them) i felt i could connect more with the scene in Gerwig's adaptation than in the BBC series and even the Winona Ryder adaptation at that. It felt less "writey" if i could phrase it so, less formulaic, because arguments in real life between siblings are disjointed and have no formula. My little sister is Amy personified and have screamed and thrown shoes when she felt wronged, while me and my eldest sisters laughed and waved away her dramatic antics cuz it's old news. My oldest sisters has denied me and the youngest the fun of hanging out with them and their cool social friend group and it really hurt. Amy's spiteful and smug face coupled with Jo's wrath and rage followed by a screaming physical altercations is very real and hits close to home. Both of them were petty and immature, and look the most childish and childlike in behaviour in the Gerwig adaptation imo. The BBC one with their fancy poetic prosey words just throw off the whole naturalism of the relationship between the siblings. Like "did u see what she did to me" and "don't look to me for comfort" felt so rehearsed. Then again, i might also be projecting the experiences i have with my sisters onto the scene whichvalso isn't fair i guess
I agree. I like the concepts in the video, just not the examples. Gerwig's version is more naturalistic; the BBC version feels stilted in comparison, though it's good in its own way.
I agree. I am the youngest of two sisters. Gerwigs version felt more real to me. Rarely did my siblings ever give me concrete reasons for not inviting me. It was often in cruel "You aren't allowed" "Your too little" "You would ruin it" sort of ways. It would happen often, you make an arguement even though you know it will be shut down, but are still heart broken and hurt anyways. I find it more realisitc and less contrived when the emotional swings are more nuanced and don't swing so wildly.
Such an interesting analysis! I had heard from actor interviews that its important to 1) have a build up to a rage for it to feel authentic, as for most people that's how it works 2) choose one moment to cry, otherwise in a movie it'll seem too emotively repetitive. I think these things apply to writing as well, and it was really helpful to break down the expectation/dynamic range to heartbreaking moments for characters. When I've had to emotionally process hard moments and epiphanies myself, that's more what it felt like. I think too tragedy and horror moments (points of no return basically) for characters are often quiet but profound, where they internalize some message and come to an irrevocable decision. I've recently been struggling with a similar pivotal scene for two characters going through a similarly charged scene, and your insights and comparison to music was really illuminating! Thank you!
I love seeing this from a writing perspective, as I learned it from the acting perspective. There’s an acting technique called “tactics and actions.” An actor who uses this technique analyzes their script and asks, “What does my character want from the other character in this scene?” Then breaks down their script and assigns “tactics” for their lines (guilt trip, flatter, bribe, comfort, wound, etc). These tactics are how they try to achieve the goal from the other character. Good acting is an actor having a clear goal, using tactics to get what they want from the other character(s), and reacting honestly to the other actor’s tactics against them - often tactic changes are reactions to the other actors’ tactics. So in scripts where the screenwriter or playwright doesn’t include subtext, it’s an actor’s job with the help of the director to create emotional dynamics.
If I might offer some feedback, I thoroughly enjoyed your breakdown of the scenes, and your emoji game is on point! That said, I would have loved to see both scenes first before you jumped into the discussion. I find the constant starting and stopping frustrating and distracting when trying to establish an opinion on something, and it was pretty clear from the start which one you favored. I'm sure you have to consider total video length, but if it doesn't add too much time, I would have found that setup more engaging. Overall, though, I found your video quite interesting and informative. Thank you for sharing!
I liked the 2019 version.... because two of my favorite actor are there... these two give me an emotional roller coaster as soon as they appear on screen. I will definitely try to put these concepts in my writing... but I still have difficulties to balance everything... emotion vs plot, when to go on vs when to take more time to enter in a scene... I'm new to this... and I have to stop thinking I must rewrite everything as soon as Abbie puts on a new video 😅 BTW... that shaked emoji just killed me every time
to be fair you could see Jo in the 2019 version simmering and breaking with anger. It's sudden because they are young girls and they can be brash and yes "passive aggressive". i found it realistic and believable. i do believe you were on point though about how Amy's disappointment wasn't built up properly, since she was acting as though she was going to be denied from the start. the older version did that build up much better
I love it when you do Cade studies, it really brings out your passionate personality. This was really great and makes me want to see the movie. I’ve been told I’m a lot like Jo
This might be an unpopular opinion but i still prefer the 1994 version of this scene better to a degree (and this is just my opinion judging by those scenes alone, not the entire film): In the 1994 ver, we see amy being whiney and it kinda gives the impression of her being childish just because she didn't get invited to see the play, it escalates to her being so angry she yelled at joe and tried to throw something at her. It shows she is currently very angry and as a response to that anger she burns joe's book, it makes sense on why she did it. She wasn't thinking clearly and was blinded by anger. It also makes even more sense that, since it was established that she can act childish previously, it makes sense as to why she chose to burn her sisters book despite it being over something small as not getting invited to a play. In her mind she doesn't care how much that book means to joe, she just want to make her suffer effectively (it showing the childishness that was shown previously). Her thought process makes sense on why she did it. When joe comes back, she immediatelly suspects amy, which in my opinion is kinda shows how much she knows her sister, no evidence, no nothing, just suspects her cause she knew her sister and how she is. Misguided yes, but realistic. Then they went on a back and fourth "no, i didn't", "yes, you did", "no, i didn't", "yes, you did" then BAM attacks her out of nowhere out of just the assuption her sister took her book and to me it's way more realistic on how siblings behave (imo) and how most sibling spats are, then when both are high on anger and attacking each other amy stops lying and reveals that she did burn joe's book, when before she denied being rensponsible. In the BBC version, i do agree in the whole set up of her being exited then dissapointed that she's not allowed to go that makes the situation have more impact and make us care about it more, but after that she's genuinely upset about not being invited then swore she would make her sister suffer acting like this was the worst thing that could've happened when it's just about not being invited and it's not the angry type of upset when ur judment is clouded and you say mean words that are driven by anger, it's just looks like just being upset (imo, based on the actors face) and it's a little off putting to me cause it wasn't established that she could be this way from the scene. Whereas the other one it is established she could be childish. And then when she tries to burn the book, her movement's are slow and her expression is ...upset but kindof guilty? The problem to me is that while the other scene she's clearly burning the book cause she's misguided by anger (you can see her doing things like closing the drawer abruptly, putting the first page quickly in the fire, clearly showing she's still driven by anger) while in the BBC one, The slowness gives the impression she's thinking through her actions or at least reluctant but still being upset. Especially in the burning scene, near the end of the burning she doesn't look that upset but she still continues to burn the book and it gives me the impression that she knows what she's doing is wrong deep down but she still does it. Over not being invited. It makes her look more petty, and it makes what she did worse. Though i have to agree that the filmaking is better in the BBC. The flames shining on her face contrasted by the dull background, the flip-flopping between the play and joe being happy to amy gloomily burning joe's book. 10/10 😍👏 Then when joe comes back, and in this version she gives her a gift and apologizes for what she did wrong even saying she'll invite her next week but amy is still bitter about not being invited *that day* . Not even looking a bit guilty after she got something nice instead from her sister. Then when the book was revealed to be burnt she looked resentful and not even a bit guilty even though *again* her sister did something nice to her. Then she just admits that she was the one who burnt her book and acts like it was a big deal that she was wronged and this was why she had to make her sister suffer. It makes her seem more sinister just to do this over a small thing. Also she just straight up says she's the one who did it just because joe asked, while in the 1994 version she denies doing it at first but only snapping and revealing the truth after joe attacked her. The 1994 made sense on why she revealed the truth and also it's just SO realistic when the other sibling just denies they did anything wrong until pushed hard enough (figuratively), while the other scene had no reason to other than to make her suffer in her face i guess. But what i think they did do well to me is because the scene made it seem like what amy did was even worse, the payoff of joe's reaction and meg's words after the fight was way more statisfiying and i do agree that it does make the scene more...dramatic. even if the context does make me think that everybody is making such a big deal out of all of this despite it just being a small thing in retrospect (except the book burning, i get why it's a big deal to joe and her reaction is understandable) While on the other scene it felt more like a misguided sisterly spat, more fitting to the problem at hand. Also this is a side rant but i just love how there are just more little details in the 1994 ver that makes the siblings feel real. Them talking over eachother, responding fast, getting emotional over little things, whining, the other being so done, meg's reaction seeing amy throwing something over being upset is more playful, little quips like: "Beth has her piano, and i'm so lonely 😔" "I can teach you chords 😮" "I don't want chords, i want to go 😒" It just makes me feel : ❤❤❤ So basicly: - the 1994 felt more realistic and the motivations make more sense - the BBC one had better tension and filming, but the motivations make less sense (or make amy look worse imo) I think putting them together would make it perfect: Amy has the expectation to go, but then denied, then got her hopes up again, then denied, kinda whines a bit to meg, then denied firmly by joe, (and in here basicly the tone goes slowly from casual to getting serious and the climaks of it being joe's firm denial) then amy snapping angrily and yelling at joe abt making her suffer and running to her room. We get the flip-flopping like in the BBC but this time everytime we cut to amy her movement's feel angered, fast, and her face being clearly upset and angry. Then when they come back, things go the same as the BBC, joe's in a better mood, she apologizes, gives amy a present, but this time amy is shocked she got a present from joe, and has a tinge of guilt on her face remembering what she did. We get the reveal the book was burnt from the lady, joe's upset, suspects amy, amy denies it, but joe gets more angry at amy while not beliving her, because of this amy's guilt just dissapears and replaced by anger, as they get more angry amy snaps and tells the truth while yelling, then ensue the fight and aftermath like in the BBC, only this time take out meg's words about "you will not find comfort with me" And there u go :D But this is all just my opinion 😅
Please do many more of these comparison videos. Your ability to break down scenes is wonderful. I learned allot from this as I watched both of these films in the past month. A Sense and Sensibility comparison would be awesome as well. You are absolutely beautiful btw. Kind talented, educated and driven. Encourages the rest of us to stay focused and achieve our goals. Thanks for doing what you do!
I never noticed this scene's emotional dynamic before. I did watch both versions of BBC's Little Women and Greta Gerwig. Figuring both from this particular scene was interesting and could feel the emotional impact it had. I didn't notice this the first time. So, I many need to watch both for next time to pick up on it. As far as the adaptions to Little Women (which by the way Little Women is my favorite novel and saw all the adaptations. I'm a huge fan) I found that the screenplay depends on whose writing it. I haven't studied Little WOmen in this way or any movie before but I now have the appreciation for it. In the end, because I resonate with the first adaptation with Wyona Ryder and Susan Saradon the 1994 version because of myself growing alongside those actors including Christian Bale and Kirsten Dunst whereas Greta Gerwig's version with Emma Watson and Sairoise Ronan I feel there's a clash between relating to too many different versions that I couldn't settle with. This is why I prefer the original version from that perspective. I believe the writing of the book was fantastic and the directors. stay true to the story made it all worthwhile. The screenwriting on the otherhand in the 1994 version is far more in depth than Grets Gerwig in 2019 but if i had to compare the original to the BBC Little Women I would say the original. This is because Wyona Ryder and Kisten Dunst do a fantastic job of emotional dynamic and potrays the feelings more as they are very different in age. Amy in the 1994 version appears to be younger and still a child compared to Jo who is much older, a woman, and carry more load of the responsibiliites as an older sibling.
one of the most important rules as writer. The results of a characters actions MUST exceed their expectations to be good. But SHOULD exceed the audiences, to be great.
Speaking of music, I like how in the BBC version, the music cuts out on Jo's slap. Not only was the slap the highest point of escalation for the scene, but the music being used like that had induced a "sucking-the-air-out-of-the-room" feeling, the kind of feeling that comes whenever a line is crossed.
I like that you use two different versions of the same scene as an example, since it removes a lot of other differences that also affects the impact of the scene.
This is one of the best presentations I've seen on the difference between a Good Story and an Outstanding One. Contrasting two versions of the same scene is brilliant and I commend you for not only the clever emoji scale but for distilling the explanation of how each scene attained the level it did - in 3 concise statements. I believe this video addressed both visual and auditory learners on multiple levels and I'd love to see the same technique applied to your other videos. I only wonder if there are enough movies with comparable versions? 😂 BTW as someone with a lifelong hearing deficit who only recently attained "normal" (assisted) hearing levels - I've been amazed at how music and sound are used to manipulate e.g. I find the use of music to influence newscasts and documentaries appalling.
Thank you! This was extremely helpful, and I can already see how it will drastically improve my novel. One other thing I noticed between the two little women scenes was that the effective one also made effective use of foreshadowing to tie the book burning to that argument, which helps the reader to feel more empathy when she acts out.
Hey Abbie! I've been watching your channel for years while simultaneously writing my magnum opus. Every time I get into a creative funk and can't seem to write, all I have to do is watch one of your videos on writing and I'm back to the page. Thanks girl! You're not only a great fellow writer, but an awesome cheerleader for the writing community. I pray for your writing life to be blessed as you have blessed others 🥰
I loved this! The way you gave the examples was so well done and I could TOTALLY sense which one carried the emotional dynamics better! You really are a brilliant writer-- all of your stuff is gold and you are the reason I am writing my first novel!
I inadvertently did this in book two of my series (currently writing it)! My character struggles to use his magic, mainly because he's looking for instant gratification, and it doesn't happen (expectation/reality!), and it isn't until nearly three-quarters of the way into the book that it finally works for him. Why? Because he let go of his unrealistic expectations and accepted reality. His epiphany moment happens when he goes back to an old friend (his guitar), where he gets lost in the music. When he stopped thinking about it, stopped trying to force it, stopped wanting it to happen, his magic flows. The scene works, but I didn't know why. I get it now. I could hear him playing his guitar when I wrote it, and I still can hear him playing when I read back through it. So... thanks, Abbie!! :) Now to do this, intentionally, elsewhere in the story!
This was high level stuff! I love the way you use a music score and emojis, it really helps illustrate the importance of flow when trying to inject emotional dynamics. Thank you.
In music, dynamics mark the passage of time, a reminder that this is not an eternal existence, but a finite reality. Thus the motion of time presents an expectation of something on the horizon rather than stagnation, or the absence of change. It is the blessing and curse of this existence, to be aware of time.
Your advice is good even tho I think 2019 version is much better. Disclaimer : I haven't seen the BBC version but am just trying to clarify things that make the 2019 version better than what you make it seem AND I am not criticising your advice that it incredible and always very helpful, I just think this example is not the best. Firstly just showing extracts don't mean anything because all the tension in this scene also comes from things that happened before. The 2019 version has a better grasp of the character, Amy is winy and Joe is almost always on the defensive, in the BBC version Amy is at first happy and then very quickly (to quickly even) sad, without actually showing who Amy really is a winy brat (at least at that age) that is jealous of Joe and Meg, she dosent really want to go to see the play she want's to do what they do. When she comes back from the theatre, in the BBC version, Joe has got something to apologise but in the 2019 Joe arrives only thinking about her book and goes directly up to write down all the inspiration she got from the play. This plays a lot in Joe's emotional arc, at this point of the film she hasn't realised she loves her sisters more than anything (this comes in the other part of it, example : where we can see Joe older abandoning her job in New York to come and help Beth) The short "yes" "no" between Joe and Amy in the 2019 version establishes the tension, the two of them know what happened but Amy still plays with Joe saying "No, it wasn't me" but the subtext is "Yes I took it, what are you going to do, you have no proof". Joe is irritated and attacks Amy. Meg gets between them and stops Joe, Amy then reveals that she burned the book (Joe thought she only took it and hid it from her) THAT is the emotional damage for her. In the BBC version Joe directly knows that it was burned, it shows that in that moment Joe (the 2019 one) is capable of attacking her sister only for hiding her book (this happens again when Joe and Lory go ice skating and Amy wants to come to. She runs to catch up with them, Joe ignore her, and Amy falls in the frozen lake). It defines the animosity and relation between the two of them, with the arc of the story they will accepte each other. This scene needs Joe and Amy like they are with "little nuance" in their personality. It an important step of their character arc. There competitions becomes tangible, concrete. The advice you gave was good but in this scene the question is "is it better to have a good character arc or more emotional scenes ?" I personally think the first is the best because with character arc comes more depth and feelings. An emotional scene is ok but it means nothing without a good story.
Yes! I understand,I just feel that 2019 version is more realistic in the aspect of feelings and knowing. It wouldn't make sense Jo (it is Jo,you made a mistake) just knew that the pages were burned (without no one telling her). It is more human that she thought that Amy only hid it.
From experience having siblings, I feel like it also portrayed interactions more realistically. I enjoyed Little Women because I feel like they really were sisters, as opposed to some other period dramas which frame the sisters in their stories as more proper and civilized. Don’t get me wrong, sometimes it works well, but the BBC Amy when she walks up and says “you’ll regret this” gives more of a friend argument vibe than a sibling argument vibe. Siblings arguments really do be screaming matches sometimes, espeeecially with younger sisters.
This is a wonderful, helpful video. I completely agree that internal conflict isn’t enough to create an enthralling piece. This hits the nail on the head!
Thank you! I've read Little Women every year for the past 60 years, and I've seen every adaptation I could find, and the BBC version is my favorite. That scene where John goes to war as the girls sing Land of the Leal is such a powerful interpretation of a single sentence from the book. I can't even type this memory of it without tears.
She didn't burn it 'psychotically' she knew exactly what she was doing. Was her behaviour somewhat psychopathic because of the lack of empathy demonstrated? Yes. Psychotic refers to a break with reality, hearing voices, seeing things that others do not, and so forth. They are two different things.
22:05 the fight choreography is much more realistic too. a back and forth, some yelling, shoves, pulling hairs/ears, finish with a big heavy-looking slap with her whole weight into it. the first one, the fight was almost like a brawl, with characters rolling around, and that awful, awful shaky cam taken straight from a low budget action movie
The BBC version is just WAY too overly dramatic for me. I dont think the actress playing Jo is able to carry the gravity that this scene wants to uptake. I definitely prefer the 2019 version. Its one of my favorite movies of all time and i could just sit there and disect all the directing and writing choices forever
Nice video, but I really wish you would have committed to presenting the scenes without bias. Just play the clips without commentary or emojis and let us evaluate them ourselves first. Then you can do your commentary.
Oh... my goodness. I've never seen any adaptation of "Little Women", nor have I ever read the story itself. With that being said, I think not having context really made the examples you gave pack a huge punch here. The first example reallly didn't make me feel anything, whereas the BBC version had me shouting at the screen. Fantastic examples! I really understand the concept you're describing here, which is great because I often struggle with this kind of writing advice. Thank you so much for this information!
I am a story teller by way of Dungeon Master ( D&D ). Thank you for your beautiful dissection of this topic! I love when my players are deeply emotionally invested in their characters, in the people of my world, and in what is happening around them. You have made it so much clearer how to do that. Thank you!
I'm still working on book one of my three novella series. It's a dystopian tale set in the near future about a young woman trying to track down superhumans and (re)form teams to stabilize a world that has all but collapsed. The things you're pointing out in this video are very helpful for a novice like me. First, I'm a man who's pushing sixty. I've never even attempted a book before. Even though I tend to be more emotional than many men I know, as i am a creative by occupation, this is still something I have to think about in my writing. It doesn't come natural for me. So think I'm going to take my prologue and rewrite it with these concepts in mind to see how it goes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 😁
I appreciate the instruction in this video on the importance of emotional dynamics, and also sharing a film version of Little Women I haven't seen. My daughter's favorite book is Little Women, and we watched all of the film versions, except for the BBC 2017 version, the BBC 1970 version, the silent film versions, and many of the TV versions. We reached the point where we needed to stop and couldn't handle one more, "Roderigo! Roderigo!". But it's been over a year, and we'll watch the 2017 version, as per your recommendation.
Wow, when you were talking about "Expectations vs Reality" I couldn't help but think about everything I went through when I was joining the Army. I specifically joined in order to learn a skilled trade, chose a trade that had a direct correlation in the civilian world, and then prepared myself for basic training by running everyday, conditioning my body to get it used to the severe abdominal cramps afterward, and learning how to do pushups, situps etc. I had never been physically active in my life. When I finally did make it to basic I suffered from extremely severe bronchitis and was vomiting and coughing non-stop the entire time. Despite this, I managed to pass all my PT tests through the sheer power of will. Finally, after all that I make it to my unit and the first thing that happens is that I am not allowed to do machining, and if I try to weld anything I get harrassed terribly by toxic leadership. All I am allowed to do are worthless details while the other soldiers get to actually weld and do machining. You have no idea how devastating this was. There was no happy ending to this. My life should be turned into a movie because it was absolutely insane the bs I had to go through.
I fundamentally disagree with your assessment. Just because a given scene involves a more complex emotional chain, it doesn’t mean it’s more well-executed, realistic, or interesting. What I like about Great Gerwig's version is how realistic it is. As a younger sibling myself, I’d often be shut off before even asking a question I'd already known the answer to. The quicker jump from one extreme to the other reflects the strain of a turbulent relationship which has already driven both parties to the same altercations over and over again. There’s little patience left, little doubt to be left in each other’s words - just impulsive, emotionally-charged actions and reactions.
Art of The Story talked about this, he said write out a scene without words - just the emotions you want the character to feel. If the same emotion keeps showing up, it means you're slowing down the pace. He used the scene from A Beautiful Minds dinner to show it.
I think I preffer the sadistic way blondie burned the book page by page, but the smack in the bbc version was well deserved. I think overall the bbc version is better, but the burned book revalation is mutually exchangable. If I stitch the two and flip the book burning and the "you burned my book bitch scenes" the story would still work. The two reaction segments make all the difference. The shock on the older women's faces in the bbc version is a classic bystander reaction many movies use.
It's so crazy that this video came out right now because I randomly came to this same realization just a couple weeks ago by analyzing episodes of I Love Lucy! It's absolutely true
OMG thank you so much! I guess you just saved my life :) I am fifteen and writing my second book and I have to finish it before march begins. Also I felt that my story wasn´t emotional enough.
@@Booklover714 😄. Absolutely. I wish I had started that young. You’re really setting yourself up for a successful career learning craft this early in life. And Abbie is a gifted teacher. The sky is the limit for you at this point. 💯
Hey did you meet your deadline of finishing your second book before March? How’s it going? Is it up anywhere or are you trying to get it published? Keeping a good thought for your progress and success!
Greta Gerwig's version is definitely my favorite adaptation. I've seen plenty of Little Women adaptations for years and read the book because my mom and sister adored it, but every version fell flat. The first time I watched 2019 Little Women, I was starstruck. The characters finally connected. The themes were developed and the arcs were actually consistent and meaningful. It felt like a thousand stories in one. Forever my favorite.
It was really good, but I wouldn't recommend it for somebody unfamiliar with the story because I think they would get confused. It's definitely not a way to introduce the story to someone.
@curtthegamer934 and I would disagree with that. It was the first version that my nine year old sister ever watched and she got it right away. That kid was able to understand color grading and non-chronological storytelling pretty well. I love showing it to new people.
I agree that the BBC version of this scene is superior. One of the most effective reasons for me is that it never enters into Jo's mind that the book is in danger. She has left it trustingly in the attic, not attempted like Gerwig's Jo to hide it away. Until she sees the charred papers in the housekeeper's hand, BBC Jo could not have fathomed this event and so the betrayal is that much more grievous to her. This is similar to BBC's Amy having an expectation of being included in the theater night but then the unthinkable happening when Jo not only says she can't come but even argues against the reasonable solution provided by Meg. Jo's expectation of safety for her book demonstrates a higher level of betrayal, just as Amy's expectation of inclusion makes the rejection that much more painful. The BBC version also gives the viewer more opportunity to be surprised, as we don't see that Jo is fearful of her manuscript being destroyed. We don't even see the book in this scene until we observe Amy contemplating it in the attic. The hesitancy that Amy exhibits at that moment shows that she knows what she is about to do is clearly wrong, especially because her sister would never imagine it happening. Gerwig's version takes away the opportunity for the viewer to be shocked by Amy's actions because it's something that has already been put into our minds as a possibility when we saw Jo hiding the book.
The Gerwig version seems to be more realistic in showcasing a fight between sisters than the BBC one though. This is a main focus in a lot of Gerwig’s work. She’s not trying to make a scene that perfectly builds, she’s trying to connect with the viewers who have experienced this. Girls with siblings (especially female siblings) will find a lot of themselves within this movie. Emotions are crazy and unpredictable during these type of fights. Obviously, this isn’t broad appeal, but most of her work is meant to connect to girls and their experiences.
This is the most outstanding video I've come across from you in quite some time. It beautifully harkens back to your early videos, delivering eye-opening lessons on writing, which is truly remarkable. It showcases a more advanced approach, highlighting a noticeable elevation in your teaching and video skills. I'm genuinely grateful for this refreshing content. After feeling like valuable insights were often behind paywalls, this video broke that trend for me-I watched it all the way through. Your dedication to this work is appreciated. Thank you!
What irritated me about the first one (2019) is I never knew why Amy wasn't allowed to go to the theater. I haven't seen the 2017 one. And I was like why would it be a big deal if she went? 😭 I didn't know there would be another showing of the play next week Jo should've said that! Omg! This is why you don't act on impulse. I think people would be more torn about whose side they're on if Jo did something that was on the same level of bad as Amy destroying her novel. I totally understand the feeling of wanting to go somewhere but not being invited or allowed tho. It hurts.
also i love amy's guilt and discomfort as she's burning the book, like she knows she shouldn't be doing this, and she isn't quite sure she is, that walk down the stairs as she's holding the manuscript is fantastic, and her bitter bitter expression as she opens the fire, like damn that is some good film making
This is Sarah Q. I have a question. I’m writing a murder mystery and my protagonist wants to investigate her own mother’s murder that happened 9 years ago. The reason she is investigating 9 yrs later and not when it happened is all developed. Her desire is to find the killer, her fear is that the killer is out there hunting her, but I can’t figure out the misbelief???
Hi! Not Abbie, and definitely not at her level of expertise when it comes to writing, but as a fellow author that has been in your shoes so many times about misbeliefs, I couldn't help but respond to this question. I find that a lot of times when writing the desire vs. fear, both rooted in a misbelief, the best thing to do is to have a fear that is only valid if the misbelief is true, and sometimes a desire that your character would only want if they believe the misbelief. For example, say your character's misbelief is "I am only loved if I am successful". This misbelief would create the desire to be successful coupled with the underlying desire to be loved. The fear would be failure and this love taken away. In your story, I would try to delve deeper. Obviously there is the external fears that someone might be hunting her, and for external conflict that is excellent. However, maybe try to explore why this has so much more to her. Maybe she has the belief that she needs to be successful in this to make her mother (or another relative that matters very much to her) proud. Maybe that's why she wants so badly to bring the murderer to justice. It's because she's afraid of them taking her down, stopping her from succeeding in solving her mother's murder. Alternatively, maybe she knows that there was a reason her mother was killed, and maybe she has a complex of knowing that she is doing the same as her mother. Or maybe her mother wasn't the greatest person, and she's afraid that she'll be punished for the sins of her dead parent. It could also be that she is afraid of being trapped in a lie (maybe because she was lied to about her mother's murder years before) and maybe she feels like she needs to have every last piece of evidence or she'll be trapped in a lie. And maybe she's also afraid of the killer hunting her and taking her down because then everyone in the world will be lost to the same lies she was forced to believe. Maybe she feels like she needs to make the truth public or everything will just be a lie. I'm kind of getting carried away here, so forgive me! I'm sure a lot of these ideas would conflict with the fabric of your story, and I don't mean to set askew anything that you already have arranged. However, I just wanted to give some thoughts in improving the misbelief, desire and fear. I find that these are so crucial, and while the external fear factor (someone hunting her) is very important, I feel like the internal fear factor (why she fears not being able to solve this case or being hunted so much) is more important. After all, it brings the punch. It turns her motive from just needing to survive, to having a clear goal in mind which she must accomplish and a clear consequence or punishment if she fails to achieve this goal. Hope these thoughts are helpful! Best of luck with your story, it sounds great! -TheYoungCatholicWriter
Really great comparison showing the emotional dynamics. But justice to the two different approaches the Gerwig version had more to do with characterization and setting up Amy as almost irredeemable. And honestly in the Gerwig version I don't think we ever forgive Amy, but in the novel and the other versions of the novel we do.
The Winona Ryder version is my favorite, but I haven't watched the BBC version. I'll definitely check it out. I tried the Greta version and it was so flat and the acting was wooden, that I couldn't through more than a few scenes. Thanks for the analysis! I always enjoy your insights.
As an amateur musician now writing my 2nd novel, it really hit me. A friend once called Baroque chamber music sewing machine music as it is often relentlessly even in pace and dynamics. An inauthentic but pleasing way would be to vary the pacing. Have subtle crescendos and decrescendos. Maybe riff on the theme. Never happen among classically trained musicians. Of course.
Abbie, your videos are always insightful, and have made a difference in how I write and portray my characters. Thanks for putting in the work to make all these. I remember watching Greta Gerwig's version of Little Women and always feeling like the movie was empty, especially as I compared it to the 90's version with Winona Ryder, but this BBC version is even superior to that. The devastation and entitlement of the two characters is well displayed, and they feel real instead of plastic. Always love your videos.
Maybe because I'm the oldest, but neither scene makes me feel ANY empathy for the little sister. In fact, the one you said with more emotional rollercoaster I feel less empathy for her because it's stated she wasn't invited and she's trying to invite herself to something someone else invited the other two girls to. She's basically trying to inviter herself on a double date. The 2019 maybe it's the same thing, but I didn't watch either. But with the clip alone, it says they're going out, and the little sister wants to go with her older sisters somewhere. Her whining makes sense to me because that's what little siblings are like. She doesn't assume she can go, she just wants to go with her sisters and complains when she can't. She acts more like a child like the spoiled youngest. And her burning the book feels less planned and less psychotic and manipulative than the other one. Granted, I do not like the way the family reacted and forced the 2019 one to forgive her little sister, where as the other one condemned the little psychopath's actions.
I have to say comparing the two new ones that I’d never watched and then watching the old one, I still prefer it. She waits till she comes home and leaves her book out at night, and she takes it downstairs and is caught burning her book. That scene is faster paced, demonstrated with action and not dialogue. Don’t get me wrong the movie is slow paced and falls off a little but in general the show me don’t tell me principle of the 90s makes those movies very entertaining.
As someone with a sibling I don't care for, I think Jo's reaction was pretty spot on. You could see in her face she was barely holding on and as some one who has also had their work destroyed by family out of spite, the 0 to 10 works. Because Amy was being so obvious about it. Begging to go places is also a part of little sibling territory. My only thing is Amy's actress was too old to play Amy's character how she did.
This is very random but another GREAT example of this writing technique is the scene in The Greatest Showman where Phineas shuts Lettie & the other 'freaks' out of the reception after Jenny sings for the first time in America. Lettie & the other's are SO excited and raving about how amazing Jenny's voice was while trying to enter the room, with Phineas just repeatedly brushing them off & barring them entry. First he says it's too crowded, then he says no-one will pay to see them in his circus before shutting the door in their faces. Throughout the exchange you watch their thrilled & excited expressions gradually fall into sadness, shame and disappointment as it set's in that Phineas is excluding them completely. Just thought it was another really well done example of the Expectation vs. Reality portrayed in on-screen emotion.
