![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ironymaidensince the Bay is showing as many Oscar nominated films as it can, i finally took myself to see Little Women. i'd heard raves about it, but i'd also heard that there were some changes beyond breaking up the linear timeline of the book.
actual text conversation as i was walking home:
C: So. Are you angry?
Me: Yes
Saoirse Ronan is very talented and her hair was thin and flat and too short and the wrong color.* that would have been okay if they had cut the plot point of Jo selling her hair. as it was the scene was nonsensical. every other sister (and Marmee) had thicker and longer hair. they make very nice wigs now. what the hell.
the angry part is that a conversation about Jo's feelings about Laurie was moved forward in time and lines moved between her and Marmee (the film "inspired" me to do some rereading) to make it look like Jo genuinely has second thoughts about having turned Laurie down. and then Jo actually writes Laurie an "if you asked me again i'd say yes" letter and puts it in their postbox and gets a little excited. and then Laurie letting slip that he's married isn't the surprise of "we didn't wait until we got home" it's the surprise of "oh, you're fucking my little sister who gets all the nice things instead of me". and then (thankfully) the letter gets torn up and dropped in the pond before anyone can see it.
so the relationship with Professor Bhaer** is pasted on; there's no time spent developing it as a meeting of minds. and Gerwig lampshades that shit with Jo having a conversation with her publisher where he tells her that the heroine can't go off and be a happy spinster, she has to get married in the end. (but it's NOT pasted on in the book. i was like, did i mis-remember there being a bunch of time spent together on books and philosophy in New York, that they clearly were into each other, or him spending weeks courting her in Cambridge? i did not.)
*also, i try to contain my rage about canonically tall women being played by average-sized actresses. I TRY.
**and why can't he have his beard in movies? there is a loving description of the rain sparkling on it, dammit. fucking civil war era, and there was no fancy facial hair on any major character.
and just, in general, i felt like Gerwig's agenda made an adaptation that didn't represent the substance or the spirit of the book. based on the critical response, it must be better if you don't know anything going in. i'd shelve this adaptation with Peter Jackson's The Hobbit.
actual text conversation as i was walking home:
C: So. Are you angry?
Me: Yes
Fifteen-year-old Jo was very tall, thin, and brown, and reminded one of a colt...Her long, thick hair was her one beauty, but it was usually bundled into a net, to be out of her way.
Saoirse Ronan is very talented and her hair was thin and flat and too short and the wrong color.* that would have been okay if they had cut the plot point of Jo selling her hair. as it was the scene was nonsensical. every other sister (and Marmee) had thicker and longer hair. they make very nice wigs now. what the hell.
the angry part is that a conversation about Jo's feelings about Laurie was moved forward in time and lines moved between her and Marmee (the film "inspired" me to do some rereading) to make it look like Jo genuinely has second thoughts about having turned Laurie down. and then Jo actually writes Laurie an "if you asked me again i'd say yes" letter and puts it in their postbox and gets a little excited. and then Laurie letting slip that he's married isn't the surprise of "we didn't wait until we got home" it's the surprise of "oh, you're fucking my little sister who gets all the nice things instead of me". and then (thankfully) the letter gets torn up and dropped in the pond before anyone can see it.
so the relationship with Professor Bhaer** is pasted on; there's no time spent developing it as a meeting of minds. and Gerwig lampshades that shit with Jo having a conversation with her publisher where he tells her that the heroine can't go off and be a happy spinster, she has to get married in the end. (but it's NOT pasted on in the book. i was like, did i mis-remember there being a bunch of time spent together on books and philosophy in New York, that they clearly were into each other, or him spending weeks courting her in Cambridge? i did not.)
*also, i try to contain my rage about canonically tall women being played by average-sized actresses. I TRY.
**and why can't he have his beard in movies? there is a loving description of the rain sparkling on it, dammit. fucking civil war era, and there was no fancy facial hair on any major character.
and just, in general, i felt like Gerwig's agenda made an adaptation that didn't represent the substance or the spirit of the book. based on the critical response, it must be better if you don't know anything going in. i'd shelve this adaptation with Peter Jackson's The Hobbit.
no subject
Date: 2020-01-22 03:00 am (UTC)Hm, I wonder how long before my kids would enjoy the books.
no subject
Date: 2020-01-22 05:28 am (UTC)I will note that there is a lot of reference to religion and faith in the book. It's very much related to trying to be a good person, but I would definitely do a skim for that and be ready to talk about it.
no subject
Date: 2020-01-23 06:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-01-23 06:24 am (UTC)My companion liked what was done with Amy, feeling she was a more rounded character. She argued that the Winona Ryder version was a stronger movie. Since I can't remember reading the book, although, I'm pretty sure I did, and I know I didn't see the Ryder version. I have nothing to add to the conversation.
no subject
Date: 2020-01-23 05:04 pm (UTC)It's worth a read, I think? I admit that I never cried over Beth since we're given tons of prep, but I still kind of want Any to have drowned for burning the novel.