Thanks for watching! If you enjoyed this video and would like to help me make more then I'd be very grateful if you'd consider joining the fantastic folks who support me on Patreon at patreon.com/tomnicholas
I think I have a slightly different interpretation of the ending. To me, when I first watched the movie, it was obvious that what was shown to us, the scene between Jo an Bhaer, was the illustration of what Jo wrote in her book after the publisher asked her to change the ending. It would mean that everything we have seen up until that point was the story that Jo wrote ('little women') and that we don't get to see the real ending (Jo not marrying) since it has been changed. The last scene of the movie, which is outside the timeline of the in-movie book, doesn't really contradict the idea of Jo not marrying Bhaer because although we do see him at the birthday party, I don't recall any clear indication that he and Jo are indeed married. It leaves it open, allowing the viewer to decide what ending actually suits them. The very romantic directing of the "umbrella scene" is to me an indicator of this, as the movie has a totally different vibe throughout and this scene seems slightly out of place, and it feels to me like a very deliberate choice from Gerwig to go down that path, almost commenting on how ridiculous and out of character it is for Jo to make that decision. What do you think ?
You hit the nail on the head I think, that's exactly how I saw it, it's a "crowd pleaser ending" for the victorian times for us modern age to see that's not the case, almost propaganda in a way? Great comment 😁
I thought exactly the same and it was a brilliant move! Although I would’ve liked to see more of this version’s profesor Bhaer bc I love Louis garrel lmao
Thought the same but it doesn’t explain how did the professor arrive to the manor if it was supposed to only had happened on the book as she changed the storyline to make him reappear on jo’s life
“A sneaky tear or two” I was UGLY CRYING through half the movie, Beth is a lot like my younger sister, and I’ve always connected to Jo, so it hit kinda hard.
Audrey the cat nerd Thank God I am not the only one who cried for two hours long. Even during the funny scenes because I knew what was coming... Now I don’t feel like a freak.
I can relate so much! I have five sisters, and really saw myself and my sisters in so many scenes in the movie. I first watched it at like 1am and *SPOILER* when Beth died I just started ugly crying and basically didn't really stop for the rest of the movie. The thought of losing any one of my sisters was so awful and tragic that I really couldn't bear it. Even when you have more siblings, there would always be somebody missing and I really can't imagine how I'd deal with that in any way. I can only hope we'll be spared from that tragedy for as long as possible.
great analysis!! i love that you mentioned all the examples of positive masculinity in the film and the story in general. although the patriarchy is harshly criticized, there isn’t a single male character who is one dimensional or unlikable. the problems come from an institution that values men over women, but never from the men themselves, which is such a rare and refreshing take in our current media chocked full of “woke,” “girl boss” films that spend the entire run time making men the punchline and the villains.
Thank you! Yeah, it wasn't something I really thought about until a little while after having watched the film. Throughout, the film is interested in a primarily structural feminist critique (it recognises that they can't just "lean in" and suddenly everything's fine and that it is a system that is the problem) and I think that carries over into the male characters. Other than Mr Dashwood they, as individuals, are not intrinsically bad. In terms of trying to convince the audience of their point (if that's what they're interested in, Gerwig likely also just wanted to tell a good story) I think it's a very productive approach.
I do not think Louisa May Alcott had negative feelings toward men and masculinity, and I think she was mostly frustrated by the limitations put on women to be forced to be feminine AND to enter into heterosexual marriage. A quote from Alcott: “I am more than half-persuaded that I am a man’s soul put by some freak of nature into a woman’s body … because I have fallen in love with so many pretty girls and never once the least bit with any man.” Given she relates to men, and adores women I think that the presentation of healthy, loving, masculine figures makes a lot of sense. Her brand of feminism was never exclusionary of men or boys. Her sequels to Little Women were called Little Men and was about running a boys school, which is an interesting choice for someone who had been focused on elevating women and giving them access to education. This film adaptation implies that the school was co-ed, which is not the case
@@selina5598the sequel to Little Men was called Jo's Boys. Even if she did receive pressure to make it an all boys school, there is no evidence she had negative feelings toward men and boys as a result of the pressures placed on women. I also think she identified with masculinity and it wouldnt surprise me if she really just wanted to write about boys and boyhood.
I ended up interpreting the ending as Joe and Mr Dashwood simply coming up with an ending for the book. All throughout the movie, the golden scenes looking back on childhood nostalgia are what Gerwig was trying to implicate as memories that are often much more whimsical than possibly they were in reality. These scenes are what Joe is then writing in the attic at the end of the film. So when she ends up chasing after Bhaer at the end I see it as a comical ending that is supposed to make us see that this joke of a marriage for Joe which was never supposed to happen... didn’t actually happen. It’s just the ending of the book that Joe leaves with at the end. This way, the story stays true to the original whilst honouring the path Alcott would have wanted the story to take.
As a fellow Josephine who shortens my name to 'Jo', please leave the e off the end lol but I think you're right with how the ending happened. I sort of wish she ended with the professor but that's probably because I ended up fancying him in the film ahaha
Gerwig also includes a 'false' scene in the middle of the film where Beth recovers from her fever and the Colonel returns in time for Xmas dinner. It is followed immediately with another where Beth died in a darker color palette representing the 'truth' of Beth's death. The final scene is shot in the same warm palette as the false recovery scene. I think she is leaving clues that the past is a fictional account from Jo's book.
@@andreraymond6860 interesting interpretation of the Beth recovery scene. I assumed that that scene was just showing when Beth had previously been sick while Marmee was away, from which she actually did recover due to the fact that it is implied she gets it from the poor family they sometimes help. The warm palette is applied to all the childhood memories, not just the false ones, so I assumed it was part of that timeline, as the idea of the false scenes only becomes apparent with Jo going after Bhaer
@@andreraymond6860 The book actually does have Beth be sick, recover and Mr March coming home for Christmas. She however, does not recover fully and is sickly for a while, and eventually dies a few years later. The jumping around in the timeline really does Beth's character no favors in this movie as we (or I anyway) don't feel the impact of her death as much in this version of the movie, but if you only see this version of the movie, that's a great and valid interpretation of it.
this is now my favourite movie ever. i find the artistry in the form of the timeline and the ending mesmerising and it really shows Greta's talent and vision. i feel so connected to this version of Jo; wanting freedom and independence as a woman and feeling different for not seeking 'love' but simultaneously feeling so alone. i appreciate that Greta has left the conclusion up for interpretation, because if i saw Jo walking down the isle i would have wanted to walk out of the theatre, i would not have connected to the film the way i have. anyway. i love your analysis and the passion with which you speak!!
Friedrich Bhaer is based on Louisa May Alcott's first love philosopher Henry David Thoreau and Laurie on her ex, Ladislas Wisniewski. In her journals, Alcott writes about receiving her “award” in the next life (love and children). When Alcott writes about her loneliness, you can feel her pain, having lost the love of her life, and that is not something people should make fun of. There is a chapter in little women 2019 film guide where Greta Gerwig talks about how she wanted to make a mockery of marriages in little women. Gerwig also said in her interviews that ”Laurie wants Jo to step into adulthood”. Real life Laurie was 10 years younger than Louisa May Alcott and in the book, Jo is the adult in that relationship. Greta Gerwig lied to millions of people, and there are some who say that she ”fixed” Jo, since suddenly Jo wants Laurie back. In the book Laurie proposes Jo twice, she never wants Laurie back, and even when Laurie proposes Jo defends Friedrich when Laurie is badmouthing him, and Greta ”I call myself as a Louisa May Alcott expert and haven't even read the book” completely erased that.
I thought it was such a clever ending, because at first I was like wow Jo finds happiness and she can accept love. But after watching the part in which they discuss the ending of the book.. you suddenly have the feeling you are watching a romcom and an ending that is fabricated. It makes you more conscious of how a lot of films still revolve around this happy ending instead of just focus on life and genuine feelings which is actually way more interesting.
Friedrich Bhaer is based on Louisa May Alcott's first love philosopher Henry David Thoreau and Laurie on her ex, Ladislas Wisniewski. In her journals, Alcott writes about receiving her “award” in the next life (love and children). Henry passed away when Louisa was 28 and he appears in literal disguises in all of Louisa's novels as the love interest. ua-cam.com/video/mzuK9xH54KQ/v-deo.html&ab_channel=LittleWomenChannel When Alcott writes about her loneliness, you can feel her pain, having lost the love of her life, and that is not something people should make fun of. There is a chapter in little women 2019 film guide where Greta Gerwig talks about how she wanted to make a mockery of marriages in little women. Gerwig also said in her interviews that ”Laurie wants Jo to step into adulthood”. Real life Laurie was 10 years younger than Louisa May Alcott and in the book, Jo is the adult in that relationship. Greta Gerwig lied to millions of people, and there are some who say that she ”fixed” Jo, since suddenly Jo wants Laurie back. In the book Laurie proposes Jo twice, she never wants Laurie back, and even when Laurie proposes Jo defends Friedrich when Laurie is badmouthing him, and Greta ”I call myself as a Louisa May Alcott expert and haven't even read the book” completely erased that. Jo and Friedrich never argue in the book. He is also based on Alcott's favorite writer Goethe. Gerwig said that Friedrich somehow forces Jo to start a school. In the book school is entirely Jo's idea, and Louisa May Alcott mentions in her early journals that she wanted to start a school with Henry. This is what Gerwig says ”we don't admire Jo because she marries an unattractive old man who speaks with a horrible German accent”. Jo's and Friedrich's age difference is the same as between Louisa May Alcott and Henry David Thoreau and in the book Jo loves Friedrich's accent. She also finds him really attractive, when she writes home she can't stop talking about him. In the book he is written to be Jo's sexual awakening, another thing that can be traced on Louisa's own journals.
Before any other astute viewers point it out, there is a moment where I refer to Marmee where I clearly mean Aunt March. I can only apologise for this glaring oversight...
Since I was a kid, I hated Bhaer and the fact that Jo ends up with him. It gave me actual nightmares the first time I learned that's the ending so the change is so important to me. It finally acknowledged how disjointed and awful that ending was. I feel like I can finally go back and enjoy the book this time around.
Shahad SHD I personally didn’t like it because before it shows how Jo finally found passion in life on her own. Then all of a sudden her sudden motivation for independence and acceptance that singleness isn’t a synonym for loneliness is lost by seeing a man she hadn’t seen in a long time. That’s what I got out of Jo’s loneliness, it wasn’t because of a lack of partner but lack of motivation and reason. All of her living sisters were doing things with their lives and Jo clung to protecting them, she in a sense became a second mother to her sisters. Once that was gone she struggled finding reason as she had given up writing, her one passion.
After viewing your essay, Amy remains my favorite character in this adaptation of Little Women... Greta Gerwig does a great job of highlighting Amy’s grasp of the society they live. Amy has a great knack of reading the room and maximizing her effective in achieving her potential within this environment that limits her potential because she is a woman of a certain class.
Friedrich Bhaer is based on Louisa May Alcott's first love philosopher Henry David Thoreau and Laurie on her ex, Ladislas Wisniewski. In her journals, Alcott writes about receiving her “award” in the next life (love and children). When Alcott writes about her loneliness, you can feel her pain, having lost the love of her life, and that is not something people should make fun of. There is a chapter in little women 2019 film guide where Greta Gerwig talks about how she wanted to make a mockery of marriages in little women. Gerwig also said in her interviews that ”Laurie wants Jo to step into adulthood”. Real life Laurie was 10 years younger than Louisa May Alcott and in the book, Jo is the adult in that relationship. Greta Gerwig lied to millions of people, and there are some who say that she ”fixed” Jo, since suddenly Jo wants Laurie back. In the book Laurie proposes Jo twice, she never wants Laurie back, and even when Laurie proposes Jo defends Friedrich when Laurie is badmouthing him, and Greta ”I call myself as a Louisa May Alcott expert and haven't even read the book” completely erased that.
I loved the film and it may be my favorite LW adaptation yet. But there were two downpoints for me: Beth's arc was rather dim and Meg's was too superficial. I wish they had included the scene where Meg stands up to Aunt March for her right to love John Brooke (which was also left out of the 1994 version), which is one my favorite scenes of the book. Sure, some of the dialogue of that scene from the book was reused on the wedding scene in the film but that doesn't have the same impact. Instead of a Meg finding her inner voice, we got a wishy-washy Meg who seems more often than not to give in to vanity.
Friedrich Bhaer is based on Louisa May Alcott's first love philosopher Henry David Thoreau and Laurie on her ex, Ladislas Wisniewski. In her journals, Alcott writes about receiving her “award” in the next life (love and children). Henry passed away when Louisa was 28 and he appears in literal disguises in all of Louisa's novels as the love interest. ua-cam.com/video/mzuK9xH54KQ/v-deo.html&ab_channel=LittleWomenChannel When Alcott writes about her loneliness, you can feel her pain, having lost the love of her life, and that is not something people should make fun of. There is a chapter in little women 2019 film guide where Greta Gerwig talks about how she wanted to make a mockery of marriages in little women. Gerwig also said in her interviews that ”Laurie wants Jo to step into adulthood”. Real life Laurie was 10 years younger than Louisa May Alcott and in the book, Jo is the adult in that relationship. Greta Gerwig lied to millions of people, and there are some who say that she ”fixed” Jo, since suddenly Jo wants Laurie back. In the book Laurie proposes Jo twice, she never wants Laurie back, and even when Laurie proposes Jo defends Friedrich when Laurie is badmouthing him, and Greta ”I call myself as a Louisa May Alcott expert and haven't even read the book” completely erased that. Jo and Friedrich never argue in the book. He is also based on Alcott's favorite writer Goethe. Gerwig said that Friedrich somehow forces Jo to start a school. In the book school is entirely Jo's idea, and Louisa May Alcott mentions in her early journals that she wanted to start a school with Henry. This is what Gerwig says ”we don't admire Jo because she marries an unattractive old man who speaks with a horrible German accent”. Jo's and Friedrich's age difference is the same as between Louisa May Alcott and Henry David Thoreau and in the book Jo loves Friedrich's accent. She also finds him really attractive, when she writes home she can't stop talking about him. In the book he is written to be Jo's sexual awakening, another thing that can be traced on Louisa's own journals.
@@Tom_Nicholas do you enjoy nightmares that have no end? If so then you'll do well to run the other direction. "He who loves thyself, shall never view the accursed televisual adaptation of the play CATS, produced in the year of our Lord 2019, for he shall most surely die" Yeah I don't know where I found that quite, sounds very biblical, no? wow so apt and from so long ago. Makes you wonder how they knew.
Friedrich Bhaer is based on Louisa May Alcott's first love philosopher Henry David Thoreau and Laurie on her ex, Ladislas Wisniewski. In her journals, Alcott writes about receiving her “award” in the next life (love and children). Henry passed away when Louisa was 28 and he appears in literal disguises in all of Louisa's novels as the love interest. ua-cam.com/video/mzuK9xH54KQ/v-deo.html&ab_channel=LittleWomenChannel When Alcott writes about her loneliness, you can feel her pain, having lost the love of her life, and that is not something people should make fun of. There is a chapter in little women 2019 film guide where Greta Gerwig talks about how she wanted to make a mockery of marriages in little women. Gerwig also said in her interviews that ”Laurie wants Jo to step into adulthood”. Real life Laurie was 10 years younger than Louisa May Alcott and in the book, Jo is the adult in that relationship. Greta Gerwig lied to millions of people, and there are some who say that she ”fixed” Jo, since suddenly Jo wants Laurie back. In the book Laurie proposes Jo twice, she never wants Laurie back, and even when Laurie proposes Jo defends Friedrich when Laurie is badmouthing him, and Greta ”I call myself as a Louisa May Alcott expert and haven't even read the book” completely erased that. Jo and Friedrich never argue in the book. He is also based on Alcott's favorite writer Goethe. Gerwig said that Friedrich somehow forces Jo to start a school. In the book school is entirely Jo's idea, and Louisa May Alcott mentions in her early journals that she wanted to start a school with Henry. This is what Gerwig says ”we don't admire Jo because she marries an unattractive old man who speaks with a horrible German accent”. Jo's and Friedrich's age difference is the same as between Louisa May Alcott and Henry David Thoreau and in the book Jo loves Friedrich's accent. She also finds him really attractive, when she writes home she can't stop talking about him. In the book he is written to be Jo's sexual awakening, another thing that can be traced on Louisa's own journals.
Thanks for this... Saved me some searching... The nonlinear storytelling gave me a fresh perspective on the story. And the ending scene of - "under the umbrella" with that cut to Dashwood and back to the romance was purely genius.
Friedrich Bhaer is based on Louisa May Alcott's first love philosopher Henry David Thoreau and Laurie on her ex, Ladislas Wisniewski. In her journals, Alcott writes about receiving her “award” in the next life (love and children). When Alcott writes about her loneliness, you can feel her pain, having lost the love of her life, and that is not something people should make fun of. There is a chapter in little women 2019 film guide where Greta Gerwig talks about how she wanted to make a mockery of marriages in little women. Gerwig also said in her interviews that ”Laurie wants Jo to step into adulthood”. Real life Laurie was 10 years younger than Louisa May Alcott and in the book, Jo is the adult in that relationship. Greta Gerwig lied to millions of people, and there are some who say that she ”fixed” Jo, since suddenly Jo wants Laurie back. In the book Laurie proposes Jo twice, she never wants Laurie back, and even when Laurie proposes Jo defends Friedrich when Laurie is badmouthing him, and Greta ”I call myself as a Louisa May Alcott expert and haven't even read the book” completely erased that.
Yes, that's what I think also; it also shows in the costumes, as these are not actually historically accurate for all the sisters, especially Jo. They look more like a modern-day reinterpretation of 1860s costumes. However, Amy's costumes seem to be the historically most accurate of all the sisters.
I read the book at 12 years old. I watched the version with Winona Rider at about the same age. I watch this one today. It was so beautiful and I cried tremendously.
If you read Louisa's letter exchange with her publisher she was the one who came up with all the marriages. Friedrichs character in little women is based on philosopher Henry Thoreau Louisa was in love with him. Laurie is based on Ladislas Wisniewski a young man who was first flirting with Louisa and then betrayed him. In all of Louisa's novels these two male archetypes are constantly present. The Friedrich archetype is the humble hard working man (Fritz in lw, Mac in Rose in Bloom, David in Work) He has silent passion for the protagonist and the Louisa type of protagonist loves him and wants that equal relationship. Laurie archetype is charming but idle. He either puts his act together and falls for a female character (like Amy) who is stern with them or they fail and fet sucked into consuming toxic self-harming behavior. Little Women is all about Louisa's love life. That is why she had conflicted relationship towards it. Henry was 16 years older (same age difference than between Louisa and the professor) Ladislas was 10 years younger. Louisa and Henry, They did have an affair and almost a telepathic way of communication which is also present in the novels. Henry passed away 5years before LW was published. That is also why Louisa listed out to be nurse in the war. He had lost her sister Lizzie at the same time.
Little Women was one of my favorite books as a teen and I loved the 1994 film, but this one was truly something else. Amy was more likable as a character, even if it was kinda weird to see her portrayed by the same actress as a girl and as a young woman. The thing I could say I didn't like was how they made the professor someone handsome and younger than the book counterpart, because part of the reason why Jo married someone that old, as I understood, was a form of "screw you" from Louisa May Alcott to the people who said Jo HAD to get married.
I am a 15 year old girl and I really enjoyed the film. My mom and I went to the movies and watched it together. It was fun, and afterwards we had a long conversation about women’s role in society and how opportunities have changed over time. She told me her story, her grandmothers, and her opinions if the world. I loved it!!!
Have you seen the film 20th Century Women? Gerwig is in it. An interesting reflection on how women's roles changed over the 20th century, and a great movie in general.
Came out of the theater feeling so unsatisfied with the ending because I couldn’t understand Jo‘s choice. Now I know that it wasn’t supposed to feel satisfactory when she ran after Friedrich. Whilst it might have made her feel less lonely and (as you said) it did make her happy in a way, it’s also a result of the partriarchys pressure on women at the time.
Happiness is ultimately an inside job and purely an inside job, but we are social beings made to love and be loved. I think the modern notion that a career and cats replaces the meaning found in family is misplaced. Why do we love Little Women? The love between the sisters. That's family. And as one ages, ones family dies off and if we have not created our own family, we live alone. Few people find that to be how they wish to spend their elder years. Just my 2cents...
That's the ending of the book she wrote, not her reality. She told the editor that she did not end up marrying laurie nor bhaer. Which i think was a genius ending
You just gave the Film a whole new level of greatness for me, I had not known about Gerwig‘s mixing of Jo and Alcott. Thanks for making it even better for me!
I love the contrast between the two scenes with Mr Dashwood, how it shows her growth from her past-experiences; It's where I think the non-linear story structure shines most.
Though everybody is talking about the ending and all that, I was being more moved by something else. I did love the ending. The whole movie was just perfect and nothing was out of balance. But throughout the movie and after watching the whole movie, what I found so captivating was the love between these sisters. Seeing them holding each other in times of need, hugging each other with so much love that it resonated in more ways than one. I just wish that I have the same relationship with my sisters and I never want to lose my parents and my siblings. I just hope and pray to ALLAH that I have them by my side till the end. I just want them to stay in my life forever. I really felt hurt to see beth die like that and I never want to experience something like that. Just like jo, I don't want to alone.
Please read the book, if you haven't yet. I think you would love it. That theme is much more emphasized in it. Alternatively, I think the 1994 adaptation does a good job of showing how the sisters love for each other.
I really liked the film, too! I saw it dubbed unfortunately (though I want to watch it in English as soon as possible). I haven't read the books yet, but now I am really looking forward to. At least in translation, I thought the ending was hilarious. it looked like they were just taking the mick at forced cheesy romantic endings, I loved it. Thank you for this video btw, it was very interesting to watch! take care
Haha, I always find dubbed films a bit odd too. Although I don't speak any other languages, I much prefer subtitles and the original performances! Glad you liked the video and my thoughts on the film, I feel like this is possibly a bit of a niche video compared to some of my usual output but I really enjoyed writing and making it!
This is brilliant: well spoken and written. (Alcott's capitulation on Jo's marriage to Bhaer, however, was not only material but heartfelt, for her readers' wishes.) Thank you for a great, very well-spoken video lecture! 😍
Your videos are phenomenally well articulated. I cannot express enough how much I love your thoughtful productions. I'm sharing this far and wide and recommending it to my friends.
This is exactly what I enjoy and want when I wish for a female protagonist. That weakness nor strength are absolute. We need both of these to live. Thanks for pointing such an important detail.
@@PlumeConvergente I love that, but what's bothering me is that Jo initially said she doesn't marry at the publisher, which makes me wonder if that's the actual story. The ending scene of her family also felt more like a dream, while she clutches her book as if to cling on to the beautiful moments in the book. Either way, beautiful movie/book. I feel more bittersweet about it
@@lizg2153 I personnaly think it's because she was a child and love this part of her life. But then she realised something missed in it, especially after her sister passed away. She said to Marmee that she is sick being reduced to a husband because she is a woman but she admit that she feels lonely. That is the reason why she accept the Idea of marriage, marriage is not important here, love is.
heya. just came across your channel and i love how you pointed out the ending as a meta-narrative of Louisa May Alcott's process of writing Little Women. I love how it forces the careful movie-viewer to look at the ending of Little Women in a more critical light, yet at the same time, it doesn't cast the prospect of marriage in a overt cynical manner, which is rare considering postmodernism is largely characterised by cynicism and disillusionment. while you pointed out the several instances of positive masculinity in father march and mr lawrence, i found the leading male character theodore interesting in the sense that at first, he ends up embodying a lot of positive masculine traits. he's sensitive, kind, accommodating yet as the movie progresses, we found out that he couldnt deal with the rejection of someone he had loved in an egalitarian way and so he decided to love someone else more because the other woman is deferential, contented with being a cute little wife who calls him my lord. its devastating to me because its as though gerwig is saying that men who seem to embody positive masculine attributes merely internalise patriarchy in other ways thats a little less immediate to the eye.
What I’ve gathered from reading some of the spiteful comments and poor reviews of the film is that if you go to the theater (or don’t: I reckon a lot of these people saw pirated versions, they seem as stingy) fully expecting to hate it, get riled up at “feminism” and sneer at each scene, no matter how well-written or acted, you will ruin your experience of the film with your own bias and leave the theater/your computer with the self-fulfilled prophecy of “I was right, it was a bad movie” and the taste of conviction your own bile.
I havent read as many spiteful comments, so im not sure if i fit into the category you're describing, but I watched it in a theatre expecting to love it and i did not like it at all. I had seen Lady Bird and really enjoyed it and was looking forward to seeing a progression on Greta Gerwigs filmmaking. I wasn't familiar with the story and i think most of the things i didnt like came from the original story, but i still think they were portrayed in a disapointing way. I felt like the movie never dared to be properly sad or upsetting so it didnt earn its happy moments. And i felt like I wasnt watching real people. An example would be how Marmee says she had a bad temper, but we never see any residue of that to support her saying it; or that the dad comes back after alienating himself from his family and hes mostly just happily welcomed and accepted, like there would be a much bigger rift there. Idk it's probably just not my cup of tea and i should stop complaining, but I hate that I didn't like it as much. And yeah sometimes I thought the feminism felt a bit hammy, they didn't say anything I hadn't heard or experienced myself and in my living-environment, it's not revolutionary or contraversial to hold the belief that women should be equal to men. I think movies like Roma or All About Eve have a more interesting take on feminism while also being very entertaining apart from that.
gigi mujde But this is how the book was. You never see Marmee being angry, she just says it and that’s all. It was totally a great adaptation. If you haven’t read the book (or even worshipped like I do), then chances are high you won’t like it. Perhaps read it and rewatch? Sometimes this changes A LOT for me.
gigi mujde Oh, and I need to make it clear that it’s 19th century, and the idea of women and men being equal is so wild, controversial and potentially “problematic” for most. It’s almost a brand new idea. Even now, in most countries, it’s crazy so... I’m glad you’re lucky you haven’t experienced it at all, but I do and I know several women who have it WAY worse than me and it’s 21st century...
@@ttpdaoty I think you are right. It would be way too progressive for that time to actually portray women's true feelings. But at least for the period I think it was already kind of progressive in showing some unconventional feelings.
@@gigi3843 I think it's unfair to compare this movie with all the others you are mentioning. You should place this movie in the time it's written. The morals were very different. I think it's already quite progressive for the time it's been written in. If you would translate the struggles in the movie to this time period.. it would not work. I had quite low expectations because usually period dramas are not relatable to me. But this one actually kind of was because some of the expectations for women in the movie still stand true today, even though not as strict and as direct as they were back then. I have not seen the other versions of Little Women so I can't really judge, but I think it was very clever that took the perspective of writing a book as a woman in that time period, it gives it an extra dimension. It shows you that the writer was more progressive than she was allowed to be.
Fantastic explanation, you have Left no stone unturned in explaining the storyline, The character analysis of all the Female and male characters are done in a very individualistic away. Keep up the good work
I strongly disagree. At no point in the film's script is there a gradual construction that marriage would be about love and companionship. The film repeatedly highlights the financial consequences involved in choosing or not choosing to marry, like the scene about buying the fabric or coat. Jo only considers marriage after her disillusionment with her career as a writer, stressing that marriage is indeed a financial decision. The boy Jo marries appears in a quick scene at the beginning of the film, framing him as an insignificant character for whom she feels no form of affection, but after the conversation with editor Jo becomes magically in love with him. I understood this as a strong criticism of the culture industry and the limited choices available to women. Oh, an important detail in the script analysis. You said yourself that the director plays with facts and memory, making memory inaccurate. With that in mind, remember that the moment Jo is talking to the editor and simultaneously running after the boy at the train station, the kiss scene becomes the memory. In addition, the director also plays with the colors of the frames: The present moment has cold colors and the cloudy memory has warm colors. The kiss scene has warm colors. The moment I watched the movie, I started laughing at the director's genius audacity, playing to the audience that that romantic ending never happened and Jo's real happy ending would have been the publication of the book. Enjoying Jo's romance is undoubtedly ignoring the message of the film and saying that the director talks about the affection of marriage is a fallacy.
I honestly don't care what the author wanted. She wrote the story as it was and therefore the movie should follow that storyline. I never understood why people like Jo and Laurie. Laurie obviously wants to marry Jo because he longs for a family like hers. Jo and Mr Bhaer was a more genuine relationship based on common interests and the sequel Little Men shows that. They have a sweet and tender relationship.
I'm not the biggest fan of the film, but analyses such as yours has helped me to appreciate it more. If there's enough people passionate about any film, I can't help but want to dig a little deeper instead of writing it off, so thank you for sharing your thoughts. Well done. :)
I think your take on what the film means is quite fascination, but I still do believe that Fredrick and Jo don’t actually get married, but that this scene at the end is really just a visualization of the rewrite of the book. And I do see it as maybe a win in Jo’s case, she gets the house, start a school, and is able to sell a successful book where a women gets married despite not needed to marry in reality. But idk
I've not seen many (perhaps any actually) of the previous adaptations so have little to go on in terms of comparing Gerwig's version to other interpretations of the book. I really loved what she did with it though. It felt playful yet respectful at the same time. As a ten time expert on the book, what did you think of the film?
Tom Nicholas I thought the switching between past and present was a good narrative technique to use and I agree that it kind of balanced the story. I think the book was written by Allcott to question the present, she reminds me of a reflective Shakespeare in this novel, really getting to grips with human nature against the odds of a society in which women were seeking a voice beyond just marrying well. I think the March girls represent the hopes of many women like Allcott herself I guess. Jo reminds me of Middlemarch’s author who was rejected until she used the name of a man to publish her novel, even the name Jo is in fact masculine and chosen well by Allcott.
I love Middlemarch too and think there is a lot that connects the two. Particularly, I've always found Elliot's tone in Middlemarch to be pretty sarcastic when it comes to marriage in a manner that almost accepts that there's little that can be done about the way things are in the short term but is clearly very, very frustrated by it all!
Tom Nicholas agreed! The main thread is the frustration of both authors. Elliott certainly is quite skillful in getting her point through but in a more aggressive manner than Allcott who uses persona to disguise this frustration.
An excellent assessment, thank you. I completely adored this adaptation. There is so much nuance throughout the novel that Greta was able to bring to the surface and I was delighted
I saw this yesterday,and the film is really good ,however I think it can be confusing if you aren’t familiar with the previous versions or the book . However if you are familiar,you can literally leave the theatre (which I did) and come back and not miss anything.
when I read Little Women as a present from my aunt I never read the last chapter because I grew bored eminently before it. I've assumed the professor, as he was referred, was quite old, and therefore jo would forever remain alone in a circle of scholars. I did eventually watch a movie and learn of the ending which surprised me greatly.
This is great. This is great work! And the thing. enjoy the most is that it doesn't have the theatrical pretentious pauses that are everywhere in the film analysis video essay space on YT. Yes, it's an essay. But you're reading an essay, not performing a poetry piece.
I'm so glad to have found this video and so many people who loved the film as much as I did. I've never read the book nor watched any of the other adaptations, so cannot comment any further than to say that this is not only my favourite film of 2019/20, but one of my all time favourite films.
Para mí Jo se casó con Friedrich, ella aparece en la conversación con el editor negándose a casar a su heroína y finalmente accediendo, como un paralelismo con su propia vida en la que antes tampoco quería casarse, y la historia que escribe en el libro es la historia de su vida. Si entendemos que la visita de Bhaer a su casa y la escena posterior en la que su familia le convence de que vaya tras él son reales, y si finalmente no se casa con él porque no llega a alcanzarlo, lo normal hubiera sido que lo enseñaran. De hecho, la escena final de la película en la que están todos en el campo es el final original del libro de Louisa, en el que han pasado 5 años, Jo abrió junto a Friedrich una escuela en la mansión que heredó de la tía March y están celebrando el cumpleaños de la señora March. Cuando vi la película no vi ninguna ambigüedad en el final y me sorprendió ver que hay gente que interpreta el final como que Jo se quedó soltera. Yo soy de las que piensan que no debe tratar de cambiarse un final que es un clásico de la literatura, por mucho que el autor estuviera o no conforme en su momento con lo que escribió.Y efectivamente, si Jo no se hubiera casado al final la obra no hubiera llegado a tener el alcance que ha tenido. Lo único que no me pareció muy bien fue que cambiaran tanto a Bhaer, es cierto que Louis Garrel es más mayor que Saoirse Ronan, pero parece más joven de la edad que tiene y es muy atractivo. Además, la película no muestra la evolución del romance y como Jo se enamoró de su intelecto, da la sensación de que Jo tuvo un flechazo a primera vista por lo atractivo que era, y eso no le hace justicia al romance de estos dos. Pienso que la directora de la película podría haber homenajeado la intención inicial de Louisa de no casar a Jo sin confundir a la gente, ya que ahora habrá mucha gente joven que sin haber visto las películas anteriores ni haber leído los libros, se habrán quedado con la idea de que Jo termina soltera.
I have never read the book, because as a child I watched two of the films and hated the story. I used to feel that there was an overlooked critical narrative on marriage, that characters suddenly found love when it didn't feel right for them to do so in the story's structure. It was confusing to me, and it stopped me from reading the book. I loved this version of the film, I feel the dual timeline moments really added weight to future/current events, and it did what I had always wanted the story to do. The area I live in is relatively poor and there are more older people living here than younger, I've grown up around women offered a lesser education and jobs that can barely support them. Many have married, it was expected of them but also a financial necessity for so many people. It's so strange that this film can feel so current for me
Many of the 'feminist' issues the story highlighted remain relevant. Yes, female spaces and trajectories have shifted for many women (particularly in the West). However, both in action and thought, possibilities & experiences that women can even imagine for themselves are stubbornly constrained and in some societies remain taboo. Normsl practice for males can still raise eyebrows as well as suspicion within working class communities and doubts within female minds. The world is still full of Little Women...
Loved your interpretation of the novel communicating the intent and the thought process of the film adaptation. Might I add the innocence of the time becoming more prominent with the integration of flash backs and reality. And by that the transformation of characters is inevitable and each of the personas growth personified their charisma or essence in a sense. Some how each of their interaction among themselves and with the outside world is manifest so graciously. The film does put its stamp in terms of emotion an aura...kindness, caring, mellow, geniality, and overall civility; so diverse from this era of speed, egocentrism, self obsession, self serving , insensitivity, acquisitiveness; in the vein of mediocrity. And indeed very self introspective!
Loved the film - so smart. And your analysis was fabulous to listen to. Best reflection of the year so far - Dashwood as a 19th century Deadpool. Laughed. Hard. But sooooo true! 🤣
I saw Jo and Bhaer marrying as Jo accepting that she can be both accomplished AND married. Her denying marriage was her way of rebelling against the norm since childhood and it was good that she grew out of it but also without losing herself into it like she never wanted to. Also Amy getting mad at Laurie was a similar thing, it was her immaturity speaking up and trying to prove something to herself, when she are truly happy if she surrenders to her honest emotions and wants, like Jo does at the end
Friedrich Bhaer is based on Louisa May Alcott's first love philosopher Henry David Thoreau and Laurie on her ex, Ladislas Wisniewski. In her journals, Alcott writes about receiving her “award” in the next life (love and children). When Alcott writes about her loneliness, you can feel her pain, having lost the love of her life, and that is not something people should make fun of. There is a chapter in little women 2019 film guide where Greta Gerwig talks about how she wanted to make a mockery of marriages in little women. Gerwig also said in her interviews that ”Laurie wants Jo to step into adulthood”. Real life Laurie was 10 years younger than Louisa May Alcott and in the book, Jo is the adult in that relationship. Greta Gerwig lied to millions of people, and there are some who say that she ”fixed” Jo, since suddenly Jo wants Laurie back. In the book Laurie proposes Jo twice, she never wants Laurie back, and even when Laurie proposes Jo defends Friedrich when Laurie is badmouthing him, and Greta ”I call myself as a Louisa May Alcott expert and haven't even read the book” completely erased that.
I got the impression that Jo and Bhaer did end up together but not in the usual way. I felt the umbrella scene was fabricated by the publisher however the scenes before it when Amy declares Jo loves Bhaer felt real. I felt she would have been titled a 'spinster' for not marrying BUT she can still have a male companion. In our modern times many women choose not to marry and co-live with their partner, some are poly for example who may choose to live alone but date multiple people. I think Greta was nudging towards that Idea that Alcott was a forward thinking woman and if she was alive today I believe she wouldn't marry but she'd choose a companion-which ultimatley keeps her freedom and she's not constrained by being a dutiful wife. The fact that ending shows her opening a school also backs this up, Bhaer is a teacher as is she, they can live together running the school without people ear wigging on their personal relationship (which would have happened back then "what is she doing dallying with a man out of wedlock!") I imagine them both having their own dorms, running the school and having a relationship-with most people being non the wiser. I also imagine Amy teaching art, Meg teaching home Ec and domestic skills or beauty, I imagine Laurie teaching theatre-although I know he did go to work for his father to become someone for Amy (but he mentioned in the scene with Amy he was writing an opera). But that's the beauty of Greta Gerwig's adaptation, so many possible endings based on many peoples differing imaginations! I felt the ending with the book in her hands was beautiful. I have wanted to publish a book since I was a kid and I'm working on a short story collection and poetry book. To see that scene made my heart smile- she finally got her book, the ending suggests this isn't a love story between Jo and Bhaer but a love story between a woman and her book. This suggests to me that, yes loving someone is lovely but women are not 2 dimensional. Also many people (even today) think all a little girl thinks about is falling in love, the perfect wedding and babies, and whilst there are some incredible domestic goddesses out there- I didn't have boys on my mind until I was much older. I remember being gifted baby dolls and a kitchen as a little girl and I looked at the adults like "what am I supposed to do with this?". I wanted books and art materials to make things! My sister climbed trees! And I think the earlier scenes of the girls play fighting and showing their disinterest in marriage shows girls are no different from boys at that age when boys go "ew girls! I'll never marry!" It shows that for many girls for a long time that gender sterotype is pushed upon them by society from a very small age which is why Marmie is a breath of fresh air, she treats her girls as society would treat boys at that age. Even today my neice is already being brain washed' with toys to prepare her to be lady-like, have domestic skills etc. My nephew is allowed to play online gaming or rollerblading- he already has more freedom to be as he chooses. Seeing how boistrous the March sisters were was freshing. So many layers to this movie, I love it!
Thank you for this video, I enjoyed it very much. As for the ending - in my head, Jo stays single and just changes the book as a clever move to get more money to live her life! But I am aromantic myself and desperate for some representation of a "happy spinster"... Oh, and you're right - most men in this film are delightful!
I prefered the 1995 version as the childhood scenes are my favorites in the book and the film skipped most of them and hardly touched the others, my favorite scene of Meg being dressed up completely failed as she looked so normal in the group, not too dolled up. I loved your analysis, and I liked the scenes in the publishing house, I just wish they weren't the reason why all the other good scenes are missing.
This is a very insightful analysis. For while I have very little time or patience for feminist writings and commentary, believing, as I do, that at the core of human needs are the need for companionship, love and trust between man and woman, I have found your commentary of this film to be truly heartwarming. I disagree with Alcott’s preliminary desire to have someone as loving and brilliant as Joe remain a spinster. What is the point of creating such a loving and deep character and then twist her into an pure ideologue. That Alcott herself chose that path is beside the point. She might not have found a companion worthy of her. But Joe has, and no other ending would be possible for such an honest character then Joe’s recognition of it. Well done.
When I first watched the movie I was suprised that Bhaer wasn't actually that much older than Jo, since that's not how it was in the last adaptation. Even though I haven't actually read the book considering the time it made absolute sense to me that she would end up marrying an older man. For me it made it even more clear that her decision had nothing to do with love but pure reason and/or desperation. It almost feels like they tried to make Joe's story less tragic by making Bhaer seem like an very attractive and eligble partner through out the whole movie. However, since the end is very open this doesn't make a lot of sense to me. We don't have to like Bhaer, in my opinion the story works even better if we think he'd ultimately be a bad choice for her. Maybe it's just Hollywood highly polishing everything and everybody but idk. Just kinda bothers me.
Absolutely and wholly loved your analysis! Especially the comparison to Magritte I found to be very clever. I'll be linking you in my blog post on the movie :-)
Just experienced an academic take on the film, which your reaction now gives some more color to and a somewhat different perspective on. Can’t describe the whole thing here, for one thing I’m not an academic, and there’s just so much. But, what do you think about - the relationship of the publisher and the author as a kind of economically based example of a “marriage”? Also, what about loneliness as a purpose for marriage? For example/thought, in 2015 Justice Kennedy referred to loneliness as a reason for the basic regulation of same sex marriage? (Gotta look it up, but it’s there.) Finally, how in fact does Gerwig get away with displaying marriage as a great, indispensable thing, when Alcott completely disagreed? Gerwig seems to truly have it both ways: homage (judicially sanctioned, see Roberts) to marriage, and also the right to/benefits of not being married. Well done Gerwig I say. And, it’s complicated. Tbh I’m old enough to have had a real problem with the sexy German/French professor at first, since I swallowed this story whole as a young girl. Didn’t get what Gerwig was up to at first, and it felt very wrong. Once I got her point, I loved the movie.
There are so many hot but shallow takes out there. It's long been a favourite book of mine and I was deeply attached to (but intellectually critical of) the 90s film. I appreciate your nuance here! Alcott herself seemed to believe like her characters that patriarchy is bad but romance and domestic life aren't... And that she wouldn't marry unless to a high standard. I think Mr. Bhaer, especially in sequels, isn't a compromise. He's an imagined, "I'd rather be single than married to anyone less than this." Which Jo, unlike Louisa, was lucky enough to do.
Just saying, Greta Gerwig ended the movie in this way to show that although Jo made her character in her novel marry, that was only because of her publisher and Jo herself didn’t get married. Louisa May Alcott never wanted Jo to marry and even said she wished she could write it 150 years later when she didn’t have to have her main character marry in order for it to sell. Now that our society is more gender-equal the movie shows that Jo stayed consistent and never married like she always said she would.
Thanks for watching! If you enjoyed this video and would like to help me make more then I'd be very grateful if you'd consider joining the fantastic folks who support me on Patreon at patreon.com/tomnicholas
Cultural materialism is another way of saying Marxist. No?
@@Anhorish no. Marixist is an economic theory. Cultural materialism is an awareness of cultural context.
I think I have a slightly different interpretation of the ending. To me, when I first watched the movie, it was obvious that what was shown to us, the scene between Jo an Bhaer, was the illustration of what Jo wrote in her book after the publisher asked her to change the ending. It would mean that everything we have seen up until that point was the story that Jo wrote ('little women') and that we don't get to see the real ending (Jo not marrying) since it has been changed. The last scene of the movie, which is outside the timeline of the in-movie book, doesn't really contradict the idea of Jo not marrying Bhaer because although we do see him at the birthday party, I don't recall any clear indication that he and Jo are indeed married. It leaves it open, allowing the viewer to decide what ending actually suits them. The very romantic directing of the "umbrella scene" is to me an indicator of this, as the movie has a totally different vibe throughout and this scene seems slightly out of place, and it feels to me like a very deliberate choice from Gerwig to go down that path, almost commenting on how ridiculous and out of character it is for Jo to make that decision.
What do you think ?
Completely agree!!
You hit the nail on the head I think, that's exactly how I saw it, it's a "crowd pleaser ending" for the victorian times for us modern age to see that's not the case, almost propaganda in a way? Great comment 😁
I thought exactly the same and it was a brilliant move! Although I would’ve liked to see more of this version’s profesor Bhaer bc I love Louis garrel lmao
Thought the same but it doesn’t explain how did the professor arrive to the manor if it was supposed to only had happened on the book as she changed the storyline to make him reappear on jo’s life
100%
“A sneaky tear or two” I was UGLY CRYING through half the movie, Beth is a lot like my younger sister, and I’ve always connected to Jo, so it hit kinda hard.
I also just in general have a very similar sibling dynamic to the Marches
Audrey the cat nerd I thought I was the only one who cried through the entire movie LMAO
I cried the whole movie as well
Audrey the cat nerd Thank God I am not the only one who cried for two hours long. Even during the funny scenes because I knew what was coming... Now I don’t feel like a freak.
I can relate so much! I have five sisters, and really saw myself and my sisters in so many scenes in the movie. I first watched it at like 1am and *SPOILER* when Beth died I just started ugly crying and basically didn't really stop for the rest of the movie. The thought of losing any one of my sisters was so awful and tragic that I really couldn't bear it. Even when you have more siblings, there would always be somebody missing and I really can't imagine how I'd deal with that in any way. I can only hope we'll be spared from that tragedy for as long as possible.
great analysis!! i love that you mentioned all the examples of positive masculinity in the film and the story in general. although the patriarchy is harshly criticized, there isn’t a single male character who is one dimensional or unlikable. the problems come from an institution that values men over women, but never from the men themselves, which is such a rare and refreshing take in our current media chocked full of “woke,” “girl boss” films that spend the entire run time making men the punchline and the villains.
Thank you! Yeah, it wasn't something I really thought about until a little while after having watched the film. Throughout, the film is interested in a primarily structural feminist critique (it recognises that they can't just "lean in" and suddenly everything's fine and that it is a system that is the problem) and I think that carries over into the male characters. Other than Mr Dashwood they, as individuals, are not intrinsically bad. In terms of trying to convince the audience of their point (if that's what they're interested in, Gerwig likely also just wanted to tell a good story) I think it's a very productive approach.
What movies do that?
I do not think Louisa May Alcott had negative feelings toward men and masculinity, and I think she was mostly frustrated by the limitations put on women to be forced to be feminine AND to enter into heterosexual marriage. A quote from Alcott: “I am more than half-persuaded that I am a man’s soul put by some freak of nature into a woman’s body … because I have fallen in love with so many pretty girls and never once the least bit with any man.”
Given she relates to men, and adores women I think that the presentation of healthy, loving, masculine figures makes a lot of sense.
Her brand of feminism was never exclusionary of men or boys. Her sequels to Little Women were called Little Men and was about running a boys school, which is an interesting choice for someone who had been focused on elevating women and giving them access to education. This film adaptation implies that the school was co-ed, which is not the case
@@BonhomieT As she was pressured to make Jo marry, she may have had to make it a boys school for the same reason
@@selina5598the sequel to Little Men was called Jo's Boys. Even if she did receive pressure to make it an all boys school, there is no evidence she had negative feelings toward men and boys as a result of the pressures placed on women. I also think she identified with masculinity and it wouldnt surprise me if she really just wanted to write about boys and boyhood.
I ended up interpreting the ending as Joe and Mr Dashwood simply coming up with an ending for the book. All throughout the movie, the golden scenes looking back on childhood nostalgia are what Gerwig was trying to implicate as memories that are often much more whimsical than possibly they were in reality. These scenes are what Joe is then writing in the attic at the end of the film. So when she ends up chasing after Bhaer at the end I see it as a comical ending that is supposed to make us see that this joke of a marriage for Joe which was never supposed to happen... didn’t actually happen. It’s just the ending of the book that Joe leaves with at the end. This way, the story stays true to the original whilst honouring the path Alcott would have wanted the story to take.
Yes!! I thought the same when seeing the movie, couldn't have said it better!
As a fellow Josephine who shortens my name to 'Jo', please leave the e off the end lol but I think you're right with how the ending happened. I sort of wish she ended with the professor but that's probably because I ended up fancying him in the film ahaha
Gerwig also includes a 'false' scene in the middle of the film where Beth recovers from her fever and the Colonel returns in time for Xmas dinner. It is followed immediately with another where Beth died in a darker color palette representing the 'truth' of Beth's death. The final scene is shot in the same warm palette as the false recovery scene. I think she is leaving clues that the past is a fictional account from Jo's book.
@@andreraymond6860 interesting interpretation of the Beth recovery scene. I assumed that that scene was just showing when Beth had previously been sick while Marmee was away, from which she actually did recover due to the fact that it is implied she gets it from the poor family they sometimes help. The warm palette is applied to all the childhood memories, not just the false ones, so I assumed it was part of that timeline, as the idea of the false scenes only becomes apparent with Jo going after Bhaer
@@andreraymond6860 The book actually does have Beth be sick, recover and Mr March coming home for Christmas. She however, does not recover fully and is sickly for a while, and eventually dies a few years later. The jumping around in the timeline really does Beth's character no favors in this movie as we (or I anyway) don't feel the impact of her death as much in this version of the movie, but if you only see this version of the movie, that's a great and valid interpretation of it.
this is now my favourite movie ever. i find the artistry in the form of the timeline and the ending mesmerising and it really shows Greta's talent and vision. i feel so connected to this version of Jo; wanting freedom and independence as a woman and feeling different for not seeking 'love' but simultaneously feeling so alone. i appreciate that Greta has left the conclusion up for interpretation, because if i saw Jo walking down the isle i would have wanted to walk out of the theatre, i would not have connected to the film the way i have. anyway. i love your analysis and the passion with which you speak!!
chelsea white agreed 100%!
Friedrich Bhaer is based on Louisa May Alcott's first love philosopher Henry David Thoreau and Laurie on her ex, Ladislas Wisniewski. In her journals, Alcott writes about receiving her “award” in the next life (love and children).
When Alcott writes about her loneliness, you can feel her pain, having lost the love of her life, and that is not something people should make fun of.
There is a chapter in little women 2019 film guide where Greta Gerwig talks about how she wanted to make a mockery of marriages in little women. Gerwig also said in her interviews that ”Laurie wants Jo to step into adulthood”. Real life Laurie was 10 years younger than Louisa May Alcott and in the book, Jo is the adult in that relationship. Greta Gerwig lied to millions of people, and there are some who say that she ”fixed” Jo, since suddenly Jo wants Laurie back. In the book Laurie proposes Jo twice, she never wants Laurie back, and even when Laurie proposes Jo defends Friedrich when Laurie is badmouthing him, and Greta ”I call myself as a Louisa May Alcott expert and haven't even read the book” completely erased that.
I thought it was such a clever ending, because at first I was like wow Jo finds happiness and she can accept love. But after watching the part in which they discuss the ending of the book.. you suddenly have the feeling you are watching a romcom and an ending that is fabricated. It makes you more conscious of how a lot of films still revolve around this happy ending instead of just focus on life and genuine feelings which is actually way more interesting.
Friedrich Bhaer is based on Louisa May Alcott's first love philosopher Henry David Thoreau and Laurie on her ex, Ladislas Wisniewski. In her journals, Alcott writes about receiving her “award” in the next life (love and children). Henry passed away when Louisa was 28 and he appears in literal disguises in all of Louisa's novels as the love interest. ua-cam.com/video/mzuK9xH54KQ/v-deo.html&ab_channel=LittleWomenChannel
When Alcott writes about her loneliness, you can feel her pain, having lost the love of her life, and that is not something people should make fun of.
There is a chapter in little women 2019 film guide where Greta Gerwig talks about how she wanted to make a mockery of marriages in little women. Gerwig also said in her interviews that ”Laurie wants Jo to step into adulthood”. Real life Laurie was 10 years younger than Louisa May Alcott and in the book, Jo is the adult in that relationship. Greta Gerwig lied to millions of people, and there are some who say that she ”fixed” Jo, since suddenly Jo wants Laurie back. In the book Laurie proposes Jo twice, she never wants Laurie back, and even when Laurie proposes Jo defends Friedrich when Laurie is badmouthing him, and Greta ”I call myself as a Louisa May Alcott expert and haven't even read the book” completely erased that. Jo and Friedrich never argue in the book. He is also based on Alcott's favorite writer Goethe. Gerwig said that Friedrich somehow forces Jo to start a school. In the book school is entirely Jo's idea, and Louisa May Alcott mentions in her early journals that she wanted to start a school with Henry.
This is what Gerwig says ”we don't admire Jo because she marries an unattractive old man who speaks with a horrible German accent”. Jo's and Friedrich's age difference is the same as between Louisa May Alcott and Henry David Thoreau and in the book Jo loves Friedrich's accent. She also finds him really attractive, when she writes home she can't stop talking about him. In the book he is written to be Jo's sexual awakening, another thing that can be traced on Louisa's own journals.
Perfectly put!
Before any other astute viewers point it out, there is a moment where I refer to Marmee where I clearly mean Aunt March. I can only apologise for this glaring oversight...
Since I was a kid, I hated Bhaer and the fact that Jo ends up with him. It gave me actual nightmares the first time I learned that's the ending so the change is so important to me. It finally acknowledged how disjointed and awful that ending was. I feel like I can finally go back and enjoy the book this time around.
Why did you hate him? Although it’s your opinion I really like him
Yes! And it felt so forced that Amy ended up with Laurie-but now it makes sense.
Shahad SHD I personally didn’t like it because before it shows how Jo finally found passion in life on her own. Then all of a sudden her sudden motivation for independence and acceptance that singleness isn’t a synonym for loneliness is lost by seeing a man she hadn’t seen in a long time.
That’s what I got out of Jo’s loneliness, it wasn’t because of a lack of partner but lack of motivation and reason. All of her living sisters were doing things with their lives and Jo clung to protecting them, she in a sense became a second mother to her sisters. Once that was gone she struggled finding reason as she had given up writing, her one passion.
@@roseclouds5838 in the movie all of that is not clear at all
@@thisissme is it forced in the book or the movie? I have never read the book and the film finale left me confused
After viewing your essay, Amy remains my favorite character in this adaptation of Little Women... Greta Gerwig does a great job of highlighting Amy’s grasp of the society they live. Amy has a great knack of reading the room and maximizing her effective in achieving her potential within this environment that limits her potential because she is a woman of a certain class.
Friedrich Bhaer is based on Louisa May Alcott's first love philosopher Henry David Thoreau and Laurie on her ex, Ladislas Wisniewski. In her journals, Alcott writes about receiving her “award” in the next life (love and children).
When Alcott writes about her loneliness, you can feel her pain, having lost the love of her life, and that is not something people should make fun of.
There is a chapter in little women 2019 film guide where Greta Gerwig talks about how she wanted to make a mockery of marriages in little women. Gerwig also said in her interviews that ”Laurie wants Jo to step into adulthood”. Real life Laurie was 10 years younger than Louisa May Alcott and in the book, Jo is the adult in that relationship. Greta Gerwig lied to millions of people, and there are some who say that she ”fixed” Jo, since suddenly Jo wants Laurie back. In the book Laurie proposes Jo twice, she never wants Laurie back, and even when Laurie proposes Jo defends Friedrich when Laurie is badmouthing him, and Greta ”I call myself as a Louisa May Alcott expert and haven't even read the book” completely erased that.
I loved the film and it may be my favorite LW adaptation yet. But there were two downpoints for me: Beth's arc was rather dim and Meg's was too superficial. I wish they had included the scene where Meg stands up to Aunt March for her right to love John Brooke (which was also left out of the 1994 version), which is one my favorite scenes of the book. Sure, some of the dialogue of that scene from the book was reused on the wedding scene in the film but that doesn't have the same impact. Instead of a Meg finding her inner voice, we got a wishy-washy Meg who seems more often than not to give in to vanity.
Friedrich Bhaer is based on Louisa May Alcott's first love philosopher Henry David Thoreau and Laurie on her ex, Ladislas Wisniewski. In her journals, Alcott writes about receiving her “award” in the next life (love and children). Henry passed away when Louisa was 28 and he appears in literal disguises in all of Louisa's novels as the love interest. ua-cam.com/video/mzuK9xH54KQ/v-deo.html&ab_channel=LittleWomenChannel
When Alcott writes about her loneliness, you can feel her pain, having lost the love of her life, and that is not something people should make fun of.
There is a chapter in little women 2019 film guide where Greta Gerwig talks about how she wanted to make a mockery of marriages in little women. Gerwig also said in her interviews that ”Laurie wants Jo to step into adulthood”. Real life Laurie was 10 years younger than Louisa May Alcott and in the book, Jo is the adult in that relationship. Greta Gerwig lied to millions of people, and there are some who say that she ”fixed” Jo, since suddenly Jo wants Laurie back. In the book Laurie proposes Jo twice, she never wants Laurie back, and even when Laurie proposes Jo defends Friedrich when Laurie is badmouthing him, and Greta ”I call myself as a Louisa May Alcott expert and haven't even read the book” completely erased that. Jo and Friedrich never argue in the book. He is also based on Alcott's favorite writer Goethe. Gerwig said that Friedrich somehow forces Jo to start a school. In the book school is entirely Jo's idea, and Louisa May Alcott mentions in her early journals that she wanted to start a school with Henry.
This is what Gerwig says ”we don't admire Jo because she marries an unattractive old man who speaks with a horrible German accent”. Jo's and Friedrich's age difference is the same as between Louisa May Alcott and Henry David Thoreau and in the book Jo loves Friedrich's accent. She also finds him really attractive, when she writes home she can't stop talking about him. In the book he is written to be Jo's sexual awakening, another thing that can be traced on Louisa's own journals.
"I'm not, thankfully, talking about cats" OMG THE SHADEEEEE🤣🤣🤣🤣 great videos as always, Tom! Keep it up!
Haha, I’ve yet to see it but I’ve never been able to stand the stage show so can’t imagine they’re gonna manage to convince me with the film...
@@Tom_Nicholas do you enjoy nightmares that have no end? If so then you'll do well to run the other direction.
"He who loves thyself, shall never view the accursed televisual adaptation of the play CATS, produced in the year of our Lord 2019, for he shall most surely die"
Yeah I don't know where I found that quite, sounds very biblical, no? wow so apt and from so long ago. Makes you wonder how they knew.
Friedrich Bhaer is based on Louisa May Alcott's first love philosopher Henry David Thoreau and Laurie on her ex, Ladislas Wisniewski. In her journals, Alcott writes about receiving her “award” in the next life (love and children). Henry passed away when Louisa was 28 and he appears in literal disguises in all of Louisa's novels as the love interest. ua-cam.com/video/mzuK9xH54KQ/v-deo.html&ab_channel=LittleWomenChannel
When Alcott writes about her loneliness, you can feel her pain, having lost the love of her life, and that is not something people should make fun of.
There is a chapter in little women 2019 film guide where Greta Gerwig talks about how she wanted to make a mockery of marriages in little women. Gerwig also said in her interviews that ”Laurie wants Jo to step into adulthood”. Real life Laurie was 10 years younger than Louisa May Alcott and in the book, Jo is the adult in that relationship. Greta Gerwig lied to millions of people, and there are some who say that she ”fixed” Jo, since suddenly Jo wants Laurie back. In the book Laurie proposes Jo twice, she never wants Laurie back, and even when Laurie proposes Jo defends Friedrich when Laurie is badmouthing him, and Greta ”I call myself as a Louisa May Alcott expert and haven't even read the book” completely erased that. Jo and Friedrich never argue in the book. He is also based on Alcott's favorite writer Goethe. Gerwig said that Friedrich somehow forces Jo to start a school. In the book school is entirely Jo's idea, and Louisa May Alcott mentions in her early journals that she wanted to start a school with Henry.
This is what Gerwig says ”we don't admire Jo because she marries an unattractive old man who speaks with a horrible German accent”. Jo's and Friedrich's age difference is the same as between Louisa May Alcott and Henry David Thoreau and in the book Jo loves Friedrich's accent. She also finds him really attractive, when she writes home she can't stop talking about him. In the book he is written to be Jo's sexual awakening, another thing that can be traced on Louisa's own journals.
Thanks for this... Saved me some searching... The nonlinear storytelling gave me a fresh perspective on the story. And the ending scene of - "under the umbrella" with that cut to Dashwood and back to the romance was purely genius.
No worries at all! I was already really enjoying the film by that point but, when that scene came, it had totally won me over!
I consider it a metamodern take on the book, It has sincerity while also proving not to be naive to the realities of the world. Really awesome.
Friedrich Bhaer is based on Louisa May Alcott's first love philosopher Henry David Thoreau and Laurie on her ex, Ladislas Wisniewski. In her journals, Alcott writes about receiving her “award” in the next life (love and children).
When Alcott writes about her loneliness, you can feel her pain, having lost the love of her life, and that is not something people should make fun of.
There is a chapter in little women 2019 film guide where Greta Gerwig talks about how she wanted to make a mockery of marriages in little women. Gerwig also said in her interviews that ”Laurie wants Jo to step into adulthood”. Real life Laurie was 10 years younger than Louisa May Alcott and in the book, Jo is the adult in that relationship. Greta Gerwig lied to millions of people, and there are some who say that she ”fixed” Jo, since suddenly Jo wants Laurie back. In the book Laurie proposes Jo twice, she never wants Laurie back, and even when Laurie proposes Jo defends Friedrich when Laurie is badmouthing him, and Greta ”I call myself as a Louisa May Alcott expert and haven't even read the book” completely erased that.
Yes, that's what I think also; it also shows in the costumes, as these are not actually historically accurate for all the sisters, especially Jo. They look more like a modern-day reinterpretation of 1860s costumes. However, Amy's costumes seem to be the historically most accurate of all the sisters.
I read the book at 12 years old. I watched the version with Winona Rider at about the same age. I watch this one today. It was so beautiful and I cried tremendously.
I thought the Winona Ryder one was wit better actors n acting . But this scenes n different adaptations this time around was good .
lee same
lol her and her partner both made films about marriage last year- he wrote marriage story.
Good video!
whoa such talented couple
15:58 i hated being forced to step out of the book’s ending. i was aware of alcott’s bio, but i wish the film would have stayed faithful to the book.
If you read Louisa's letter exchange with her publisher she was the one who came up with all the marriages. Friedrichs character in little women is based on philosopher Henry Thoreau Louisa was in love with him. Laurie is based on Ladislas Wisniewski a young man who was first flirting with Louisa and then betrayed him. In all of Louisa's novels these two male archetypes are constantly present. The Friedrich archetype is the humble hard working man (Fritz in lw, Mac in Rose in Bloom, David in Work) He has silent passion for the protagonist and the Louisa type of protagonist loves him and wants that equal relationship. Laurie archetype is charming but idle. He either puts his act together and falls for a female character (like Amy) who is stern with them or they fail and fet sucked into consuming toxic self-harming behavior. Little Women is all about Louisa's love life. That is why she had conflicted relationship towards it. Henry was 16 years older (same age difference than between Louisa and the professor) Ladislas was 10 years younger. Louisa and Henry, They did have an affair and almost a telepathic way of communication which is also present in the novels. Henry passed away 5years before LW was published. That is also why Louisa listed out to be nurse in the war. He had lost her sister Lizzie at the same time.
Little Women was one of my favorite books as a teen and I loved the 1994 film, but this one was truly something else. Amy was more likable as a character, even if it was kinda weird to see her portrayed by the same actress as a girl and as a young woman. The thing I could say I didn't like was how they made the professor someone handsome and younger than the book counterpart, because part of the reason why Jo married someone that old, as I understood, was a form of "screw you" from Louisa May Alcott to the people who said Jo HAD to get married.
I am a 15 year old girl and I really enjoyed the film. My mom and I went to the movies and watched it together. It was fun, and afterwards we had a long conversation about women’s role in society and how opportunities have changed over time. She told me her story, her grandmothers, and her opinions if the world. I loved it!!!
This is so wholesome! I love that for you and your mom.
Have you seen the film 20th Century Women? Gerwig is in it. An interesting reflection on how women's roles changed over the 20th century, and a great movie in general.
Came out of the theater feeling so unsatisfied with the ending because I couldn’t understand Jo‘s choice. Now I know that it wasn’t supposed to feel satisfactory when she ran after Friedrich. Whilst it might have made her feel less lonely and (as you said) it did make her happy in a way, it’s also a result of the partriarchys pressure on women at the time.
Happiness is ultimately an inside job and purely an inside job, but we are social beings made to love and be loved. I think the modern notion that a career and cats replaces the meaning found in family is misplaced. Why do we love Little Women? The love between the sisters. That's family. And as one ages, ones family dies off and if we have not created our own family, we live alone. Few people find that to be how they wish to spend their elder years. Just my 2cents...
That's the ending of the book she wrote, not her reality. She told the editor that she did not end up marrying laurie nor bhaer. Which i think was a genius ending
Life is rarely that simple.
You just gave the Film a whole new level of greatness for me, I had not known about Gerwig‘s mixing of Jo and Alcott. Thanks for making it even better for me!
Glad you enjoyed it!
i saw this movie twice in theaters. this adaption is one of my favorite movies of all time. incredible.
I love the contrast between the two scenes with Mr Dashwood, how it shows her growth from her past-experiences; It's where I think the non-linear story structure shines most.
Though everybody is talking about the ending and all that, I was being more moved by something else. I did love the ending. The whole movie was just perfect and nothing was out of balance. But throughout the movie and after watching the whole movie, what I found so captivating was the love between these sisters. Seeing them holding each other in times of need, hugging each other with so much love that it resonated in more ways than one. I just wish that I have the same relationship with my sisters and I never want to lose my parents and my siblings. I just hope and pray to ALLAH that I have them by my side till the end. I just want them to stay in my life forever. I really felt hurt to see beth die like that and I never want to experience something like that. Just like jo, I don't want to alone.
Please read the book, if you haven't yet. I think you would love it. That theme is much more emphasized in it. Alternatively, I think the 1994 adaptation does a good job of showing how the sisters love for each other.
@@josie5056 I will. Thanks.
I saw the film last week and loved it!!! The change in lighting making us remember the past in a golden glow was amazing
I really liked the film, too! I saw it dubbed unfortunately (though I want to watch it in English as soon as possible). I haven't read the books yet, but now I am really looking forward to. At least in translation, I thought the ending was hilarious. it looked like they were just taking the mick at forced cheesy romantic endings, I loved it.
Thank you for this video btw, it was very interesting to watch! take care
Haha, I always find dubbed films a bit odd too. Although I don't speak any other languages, I much prefer subtitles and the original performances! Glad you liked the video and my thoughts on the film, I feel like this is possibly a bit of a niche video compared to some of my usual output but I really enjoyed writing and making it!
"All the sisters end up marrying" rip Beth I guess
i guess they did all marry or die at the end
This is brilliant: well spoken and written. (Alcott's capitulation on Jo's marriage to Bhaer, however, was not only material but heartfelt, for her readers' wishes.) Thank you for a great, very well-spoken video lecture! 😍
I love the way he describes his experience of watching the movie
Your videos are phenomenally well articulated. I cannot express enough how much I love your thoughtful productions. I'm sharing this far and wide and recommending it to my friends.
This is exactly what I enjoy and want when I wish for a female protagonist. That weakness nor strength are absolute. We need both of these to live.
Thanks for pointing such an important detail.
That scene gave me trust issues.
There's no way I can see it as genuine and I wanna know what Jo actually did.
To my mind, the frustration it instills is what makes it work so well.
To me Jo married Friedrich
I think it shows everyone need someone who understand them and respect. Marriage isn't something which had to be associate with patriarcal.
@@PlumeConvergente I love that, but what's bothering me is that Jo initially said she doesn't marry at the publisher, which makes me wonder if that's the actual story. The ending scene of her family also felt more like a dream, while she clutches her book as if to cling on to the beautiful moments in the book. Either way, beautiful movie/book. I feel more bittersweet about it
@@lizg2153 I personnaly think it's because she was a child and love this part of her life. But then she realised something missed in it, especially after her sister passed away. She said to Marmee that she is sick being reduced to a husband because she is a woman but she admit that she feels lonely. That is the reason why she accept the Idea of marriage, marriage is not important here, love is.
I loved how energetic it is, I cried happy tears at the end!
heya. just came across your channel and i love how you pointed out the ending as a meta-narrative of Louisa May Alcott's process of writing Little Women. I love how it forces the careful movie-viewer to look at the ending of Little Women in a more critical light, yet at the same time, it doesn't cast the prospect of marriage in a overt cynical manner, which is rare considering postmodernism is largely characterised by cynicism and disillusionment. while you pointed out the several instances of positive masculinity in father march and mr lawrence, i found the leading male character theodore interesting in the sense that at first, he ends up embodying a lot of positive masculine traits. he's sensitive, kind, accommodating yet as the movie progresses, we found out that he couldnt deal with the rejection of someone he had loved in an egalitarian way and so he decided to love someone else more because the other woman is deferential, contented with being a cute little wife who calls him my lord. its devastating to me because its as though gerwig is saying that men who seem to embody positive masculine attributes merely internalise patriarchy in other ways thats a little less immediate to the eye.
What I’ve gathered from reading some of the spiteful comments and poor reviews of the film is that if you go to the theater (or don’t: I reckon a lot of these people saw pirated versions, they seem as stingy) fully expecting to hate it, get riled up at “feminism” and sneer at each scene, no matter how well-written or acted, you will ruin your experience of the film with your own bias and leave the theater/your computer with the self-fulfilled prophecy of “I was right, it was a bad movie” and the taste of conviction your own bile.
I havent read as many spiteful comments, so im not sure if i fit into the category you're describing, but I watched it in a theatre expecting to love it and i did not like it at all. I had seen Lady Bird and really enjoyed it and was looking forward to seeing a progression on Greta Gerwigs filmmaking. I wasn't familiar with the story and i think most of the things i didnt like came from the original story, but i still think they were portrayed in a disapointing way. I felt like the movie never dared to be properly sad or upsetting so it didnt earn its happy moments. And i felt like I wasnt watching real people. An example would be how Marmee says she had a bad temper, but we never see any residue of that to support her saying it; or that the dad comes back after alienating himself from his family and hes mostly just happily welcomed and accepted, like there would be a much bigger rift there. Idk it's probably just not my cup of tea and i should stop complaining, but I hate that I didn't like it as much. And yeah sometimes I thought the feminism felt a bit hammy, they didn't say anything I hadn't heard or experienced myself and in my living-environment, it's not revolutionary or contraversial to hold the belief that women should be equal to men. I think movies like Roma or All About Eve have a more interesting take on feminism while also being very entertaining apart from that.
gigi mujde But this is how the book was. You never see Marmee being angry, she just says it and that’s all. It was totally a great adaptation. If you haven’t read the book (or even worshipped like I do), then chances are high you won’t like it. Perhaps read it and rewatch? Sometimes this changes A LOT for me.
gigi mujde Oh, and I need to make it clear that it’s 19th century, and the idea of women and men being equal is so wild, controversial and potentially “problematic” for most. It’s almost a brand new idea. Even now, in most countries, it’s crazy so... I’m glad you’re lucky you haven’t experienced it at all, but I do and I know several women who have it WAY worse than me and it’s 21st century...
@@ttpdaoty I think you are right. It would be way too progressive for that time to actually portray women's true feelings. But at least for the period I think it was already kind of progressive in showing some unconventional feelings.
@@gigi3843 I think it's unfair to compare this movie with all the others you are mentioning. You should place this movie in the time it's written. The morals were very different. I think it's already quite progressive for the time it's been written in. If you would translate the struggles in the movie to this time period.. it would not work. I had quite low expectations because usually period dramas are not relatable to me. But this one actually kind of was because some of the expectations for women in the movie still stand true today, even though not as strict and as direct as they were back then. I have not seen the other versions of Little Women so I can't really judge, but I think it was very clever that took the perspective of writing a book as a woman in that time period, it gives it an extra dimension. It shows you that the writer was more progressive than she was allowed to be.
Fantastic explanation, you have Left no stone unturned in explaining the storyline, The character analysis of all the Female and male characters are done in a very individualistic away. Keep up the good work
This is the BEST commentary on this story and how it relates to the social discussion it is trying to convey
Thank you
I strongly disagree. At no point in the film's script is there a gradual construction that marriage would be about love and companionship. The film repeatedly highlights the financial consequences involved in choosing or not choosing to marry, like the scene about buying the fabric or coat. Jo only considers marriage after her disillusionment with her career as a writer, stressing that marriage is indeed a financial decision. The boy Jo marries appears in a quick scene at the beginning of the film, framing him as an insignificant character for whom she feels no form of affection, but after the conversation with editor Jo becomes magically in love with him. I understood this as a strong criticism of the culture industry and the limited choices available to women. Oh, an important detail in the script analysis. You said yourself that the director plays with facts and memory, making memory inaccurate. With that in mind, remember that the moment Jo is talking to the editor and simultaneously running after the boy at the train station, the kiss scene becomes the memory. In addition, the director also plays with the colors of the frames: The present moment has cold colors and the cloudy memory has warm colors. The kiss scene has warm colors. The moment I watched the movie, I started laughing at the director's genius audacity, playing to the audience that that romantic ending never happened and Jo's real happy ending would have been the publication of the book. Enjoying Jo's romance is undoubtedly ignoring the message of the film and saying that the director talks about the affection of marriage is a fallacy.
I felt like Jo did have feelings for Bhaer in the beginning because when she asks for his opinions and he criticises it, she takes it VERY personally.
I honestly don't care what the author wanted. She wrote the story as it was and therefore the movie should follow that storyline. I never understood why people like Jo and Laurie. Laurie obviously wants to marry Jo because he longs for a family like hers. Jo and Mr Bhaer was a more genuine relationship based on common interests and the sequel Little Men shows that. They have a sweet and tender relationship.
I'm not the biggest fan of the film, but analyses such as yours has helped me to appreciate it more. If there's enough people passionate about any film, I can't help but want to dig a little deeper instead of writing it off, so thank you for sharing your thoughts. Well done. :)
I think your take on what the film means is quite fascination, but I still do believe that Fredrick and Jo don’t actually get married, but that this scene at the end is really just a visualization of the rewrite of the book. And I do see it as maybe a win in Jo’s case, she gets the house, start a school, and is able to sell a successful book where a women gets married despite not needed to marry in reality. But idk
I would listen to you narrate anything. Also, hearing the way you pronounce my home state of Massachusetts is an absolute joy.
I could not agree more Tom! This book is a great delight... I have read it over 10 times 😁 and watched it several times in most of its versions.
I've not seen many (perhaps any actually) of the previous adaptations so have little to go on in terms of comparing Gerwig's version to other interpretations of the book. I really loved what she did with it though. It felt playful yet respectful at the same time. As a ten time expert on the book, what did you think of the film?
Tom Nicholas I thought the switching between past and present was a good narrative technique to use and I agree that it kind of balanced the story. I think the book was written by Allcott to question the present, she reminds me of a reflective Shakespeare in this novel, really getting to grips with human nature against the odds of a society in which women were seeking a voice beyond just marrying well. I think the March girls represent the hopes of many women like Allcott herself I guess. Jo reminds me of Middlemarch’s author who was rejected until she used the name of a man to publish her novel, even the name Jo is in fact masculine and chosen well by Allcott.
I love Middlemarch too and think there is a lot that connects the two. Particularly, I've always found Elliot's tone in Middlemarch to be pretty sarcastic when it comes to marriage in a manner that almost accepts that there's little that can be done about the way things are in the short term but is clearly very, very frustrated by it all!
Tom Nicholas agreed! The main thread is the frustration of both authors. Elliott certainly is quite skillful in getting her point through but in a more aggressive manner than Allcott who uses persona to disguise this frustration.
An excellent assessment, thank you. I completely adored this adaptation. There is so much nuance throughout the novel that Greta was able to bring to the surface and I was delighted
BEST critique I've seen!! Thank you for such an insightful walk through of the themes with all the additional research (quotes).
I'm so impressed of your speaking and critical-thinking skills.
I saw this yesterday,and the film is really good ,however I think it can be confusing if you aren’t familiar with the previous versions or the book . However if you are familiar,you can literally leave the theatre (which I did) and come back and not miss anything.
lol we stan daniel j layton at 00:38
i was looking for this comment lmao
I WAS LOOKING FOR THIS
when I read Little Women as a present from my aunt I never read the last chapter because I grew bored eminently before it. I've assumed the professor, as he was referred, was quite old, and therefore jo would forever remain alone in a circle of scholars. I did eventually watch a movie and learn of the ending which surprised me greatly.
SUCH a GOOD review! Loved it! Your conclusion of the matter (i.e. the last few minutes) was stellar.
This is great. This is great work! And the thing. enjoy the most is that it doesn't have the theatrical pretentious pauses that are everywhere in the film analysis video essay space on YT. Yes, it's an essay. But you're reading an essay, not performing a poetry piece.
The best analysis I have ever heard of Little Women, congrats!!
I saw this film last Sunday and I loved it so much! It's definitely in my top 3 or 4 films!
I'm so glad to have found this video and so many people who loved the film as much as I did.
I've never read the book nor watched any of the other adaptations, so cannot comment any further than to say that this is not only my favourite film of 2019/20, but one of my all time favourite films.
Apologies, I forgot to mention in my first comment how much I enjoyed this video and to thank you for making it
It's you! I clicked the link without even looking at the channel. I loved your video on BoJack Horseman and pastiches. You're amazing!
you hit the nail in the head, my man
ON the head... You “hit the nail on the head” is the expression in English. :-)
Timothee Chalet was such a player in this movie
Para mí Jo se casó con Friedrich, ella aparece en la conversación con el editor negándose a casar a su heroína y finalmente accediendo, como un paralelismo con su propia vida en la que antes tampoco quería casarse, y la historia que escribe en el libro es la historia de su vida. Si entendemos que la visita de Bhaer a su casa y la escena posterior en la que su familia le convence de que vaya tras él son reales, y si finalmente no se casa con él porque no llega a alcanzarlo, lo normal hubiera sido que lo enseñaran. De hecho, la escena final de la película en la que están todos en el campo es el final original del libro de Louisa, en el que han pasado 5 años, Jo abrió junto a Friedrich una escuela en la mansión que heredó de la tía March y están celebrando el cumpleaños de la señora March. Cuando vi la película no vi ninguna ambigüedad en el final y me sorprendió ver que hay gente que interpreta el final como que Jo se quedó soltera. Yo soy de las que piensan que no debe tratar de cambiarse un final que es un clásico de la literatura, por mucho que el autor estuviera o no conforme en su momento con lo que escribió.Y efectivamente, si Jo no se hubiera casado al final la obra no hubiera llegado a tener el alcance que ha tenido. Lo único que no me pareció muy bien fue que cambiaran tanto a Bhaer, es cierto que Louis Garrel es más mayor que Saoirse Ronan, pero parece más joven de la edad que tiene y es muy atractivo. Además, la película no muestra la evolución del romance y como Jo se enamoró de su intelecto, da la sensación de que Jo tuvo un flechazo a primera vista por lo atractivo que era, y eso no le hace justicia al romance de estos dos. Pienso que la directora de la película podría haber homenajeado la intención inicial de Louisa de no casar a Jo sin confundir a la gente, ya que ahora habrá mucha gente joven que sin haber visto las películas anteriores ni haber leído los libros, se habrán quedado con la idea de que Jo termina soltera.
I have never read the book, because as a child I watched two of the films and hated the story. I used to feel that there was an overlooked critical narrative on marriage, that characters suddenly found love when it didn't feel right for them to do so in the story's structure. It was confusing to me, and it stopped me from reading the book. I loved this version of the film, I feel the dual timeline moments really added weight to future/current events, and it did what I had always wanted the story to do. The area I live in is relatively poor and there are more older people living here than younger, I've grown up around women offered a lesser education and jobs that can barely support them. Many have married, it was expected of them but also a financial necessity for so many people. It's so strange that this film can feel so current for me
Seeing this on Thursday, pretty excited!
Enjoy!
i am so glad to have found you oh my thank you!
I really loved this video. Super well done and addresses some stuff i'd never even considered!!
It's the most perfect and beautiful movie I have ever seen!
I'm excited to go watch this movie soon this week! Thanks for this great vid!
No worries at all, hope you enjoy the film!
Wonderful analysis! Thoroughly enjoyed 👍
I honestly don't care WHY Greta Gerwig had changed the ending. My only issue is that I didn't care for it, let alone most of the film.
Many of the 'feminist' issues the story highlighted remain relevant. Yes, female spaces and trajectories have shifted for many women (particularly in the West). However, both in action and thought, possibilities & experiences that women can even imagine for themselves are stubbornly constrained and in some societies remain taboo. Normsl practice for males can still raise eyebrows as well as suspicion within working class communities and doubts within female minds. The world is still full of Little Women...
That was wonderfully written!
BRILLIANT commentary. Loved it. subscribed.
Loved your interpretation of the novel communicating the intent and the thought process of the film adaptation. Might I add the innocence of the time becoming more prominent with the integration of flash backs and reality. And by that the transformation of characters is inevitable and each of the personas growth personified their charisma or essence in a sense. Some how each of their interaction among themselves and with the outside world is manifest so graciously. The film does put its stamp in terms of emotion an aura...kindness, caring, mellow, geniality, and overall civility; so diverse from this era of speed, egocentrism, self obsession, self serving , insensitivity, acquisitiveness; in the vein of mediocrity. And indeed very self introspective!
No one:
Me : the auto generated captions is perfect
wonderful analysis!
this was so good! SO fucking good! i always love it when men pay attention to and see the worth in women's stories. thank you. i have subscribed :D
Loved the film - so smart. And your analysis was fabulous to listen to. Best reflection of the year so far - Dashwood as a 19th century Deadpool. Laughed. Hard. But sooooo true! 🤣
I saw Jo and Bhaer marrying as Jo accepting that she can be both accomplished AND married. Her denying marriage was her way of rebelling against the norm since childhood and it was good that she grew out of it but also without losing herself into it like she never wanted to. Also Amy getting mad at Laurie was a similar thing, it was her immaturity speaking up and trying to prove something to herself, when she are truly happy if she surrenders to her honest emotions and wants, like Jo does at the end
Friedrich Bhaer is based on Louisa May Alcott's first love philosopher Henry David Thoreau and Laurie on her ex, Ladislas Wisniewski. In her journals, Alcott writes about receiving her “award” in the next life (love and children).
When Alcott writes about her loneliness, you can feel her pain, having lost the love of her life, and that is not something people should make fun of.
There is a chapter in little women 2019 film guide where Greta Gerwig talks about how she wanted to make a mockery of marriages in little women. Gerwig also said in her interviews that ”Laurie wants Jo to step into adulthood”. Real life Laurie was 10 years younger than Louisa May Alcott and in the book, Jo is the adult in that relationship. Greta Gerwig lied to millions of people, and there are some who say that she ”fixed” Jo, since suddenly Jo wants Laurie back. In the book Laurie proposes Jo twice, she never wants Laurie back, and even when Laurie proposes Jo defends Friedrich when Laurie is badmouthing him, and Greta ”I call myself as a Louisa May Alcott expert and haven't even read the book” completely erased that.
Such a great video!
great analysis! subscribed
I got the impression that Jo and Bhaer did end up together but not in the usual way. I felt the umbrella scene was fabricated by the publisher however the scenes before it when Amy declares Jo loves Bhaer felt real. I felt she would have been titled a 'spinster' for not marrying BUT she can still have a male companion.
In our modern times many women choose not to marry and co-live with their partner, some are poly for example who may choose to live alone but date multiple people. I think Greta was nudging towards that Idea that Alcott was a forward thinking woman and if she was alive today I believe she wouldn't marry but she'd choose a companion-which ultimatley keeps her freedom and she's not constrained by being a dutiful wife. The fact that ending shows her opening a school also backs this up, Bhaer is a teacher as is she, they can live together running the school without people ear wigging on their personal relationship (which would have happened back then "what is she doing dallying with a man out of wedlock!") I imagine them both having their own dorms, running the school and having a relationship-with most people being non the wiser. I also imagine Amy teaching art, Meg teaching home Ec and domestic skills or beauty, I imagine Laurie teaching theatre-although I know he did go to work for his father to become someone for Amy (but he mentioned in the scene with Amy he was writing an opera).
But that's the beauty of Greta Gerwig's adaptation, so many possible endings based on many peoples differing imaginations!
I felt the ending with the book in her hands was beautiful. I have wanted to publish a book since I was a kid and I'm working on a short story collection and poetry book. To see that scene made my heart smile- she finally got her book, the ending suggests this isn't a love story between Jo and Bhaer but a love story between a woman and her book.
This suggests to me that, yes loving someone is lovely but women are not 2 dimensional. Also many people (even today) think all a little girl thinks about is falling in love, the perfect wedding and babies, and whilst there are some incredible domestic goddesses out there- I didn't have boys on my mind until I was much older. I remember being gifted baby dolls and a kitchen as a little girl and I looked at the adults like "what am I supposed to do with this?". I wanted books and art materials to make things! My sister climbed trees! And I think the earlier scenes of the girls play fighting and showing their disinterest in marriage shows girls are no different from boys at that age when boys go "ew girls! I'll never marry!"
It shows that for many girls for a long time that gender sterotype is pushed upon them by society from a very small age which is why Marmie is a breath of fresh air, she treats her girls as society would treat boys at that age. Even today my neice is already being brain washed' with toys to prepare her to be lady-like, have domestic skills etc. My nephew is allowed to play online gaming or rollerblading- he already has more freedom to be as he chooses.
Seeing how boistrous the March sisters were was freshing.
So many layers to this movie, I love it!
Thank you for this video, I enjoyed it very much.
As for the ending - in my head, Jo stays single and just changes the book as a clever move to get more money to live her life! But I am aromantic myself and desperate for some representation of a "happy spinster"...
Oh, and you're right - most men in this film are delightful!
I prefered the 1995 version as the childhood scenes are my favorites in the book and the film skipped most of them and hardly touched the others, my favorite scene of Meg being dressed up completely failed as she looked so normal in the group, not too dolled up. I loved your analysis, and I liked the scenes in the publishing house, I just wish they weren't the reason why all the other good scenes are missing.
I thought the movie was great! Ive not seen the other version or hadnt read the book yet but it made me feel so many emotions
This is a very insightful analysis. For while I have very little time or patience for feminist writings and commentary, believing, as I do, that at the core of human needs are the need for companionship, love and trust between man and woman, I have found your commentary of this film to be truly heartwarming. I disagree with Alcott’s preliminary desire to have someone as loving and brilliant as Joe remain a spinster. What is the point of creating such a loving and deep character and then twist her into an pure ideologue. That Alcott herself chose that path is beside the point. She might not have found a companion worthy of her. But Joe has, and no other ending would be possible for such an honest character then Joe’s recognition of it. Well done.
suprise daniel j layton in the beginning had me shook ngl
When I first watched the movie I was suprised that Bhaer wasn't actually that much older than Jo, since that's not how it was in the last adaptation. Even though I haven't actually read the book considering the time it made absolute sense to me that she would end up marrying an older man. For me it made it even more clear that her decision had nothing to do with love but pure reason and/or desperation. It almost feels like they tried to make Joe's story less tragic by making Bhaer seem like an very attractive and eligble partner through out the whole movie. However, since the end is very open this doesn't make a lot of sense to me. We don't have to like Bhaer, in my opinion the story works even better if we think he'd ultimately be a bad choice for her. Maybe it's just Hollywood highly polishing everything and everybody but idk. Just kinda bothers me.
Such a great film! Love hearing your thoughts!
this video is so wholesome!
Absolutely and wholly loved your analysis! Especially the comparison to Magritte I found to be very clever. I'll be linking you in my blog post on the movie :-)
Just experienced an academic take on the film, which your reaction now gives some more color to and a somewhat different perspective on. Can’t describe the whole thing here, for one thing I’m not an academic, and there’s just so much. But, what do you think about - the relationship of the publisher and the author as a kind of economically based example of a “marriage”? Also, what about loneliness as a purpose for marriage? For example/thought, in 2015 Justice Kennedy referred to loneliness as a reason for the basic regulation of same sex marriage? (Gotta look it up, but it’s there.) Finally, how in fact does Gerwig get away with displaying marriage as a great, indispensable thing, when Alcott completely disagreed? Gerwig seems to truly have it both ways: homage (judicially sanctioned, see Roberts) to marriage, and also the right to/benefits of not being married. Well done Gerwig I say. And, it’s complicated. Tbh I’m old enough to have had a real problem with the sexy German/French professor at first, since I swallowed this story whole as a young girl. Didn’t get what Gerwig was up to at first, and it felt very wrong. Once I got her point, I loved the movie.
topic starts at 2:25
hey. this is a really good video my guy
Thank you. You expressed it exactly.
I still haven't gotten around to watching it but I wanted to see your take 😂
great video! subscribed
There are so many hot but shallow takes out there. It's long been a favourite book of mine and I was deeply attached to (but intellectually critical of) the 90s film. I appreciate your nuance here! Alcott herself seemed to believe like her characters that patriarchy is bad but romance and domestic life aren't... And that she wouldn't marry unless to a high standard. I think Mr. Bhaer, especially in sequels, isn't a compromise. He's an imagined, "I'd rather be single than married to anyone less than this." Which Jo, unlike Louisa, was lucky enough to do.
Just saying, Greta Gerwig ended the movie in this way to show that although Jo made her character in her novel marry, that was only because of her publisher and Jo herself didn’t get married. Louisa May Alcott never wanted Jo to marry and even said she wished she could write it 150 years later when she didn’t have to have her main character marry in order for it to sell. Now that our society is more gender-equal the movie shows that Jo stayed consistent and never married like she always said she would.
So good!
reaaaalllyyyy gooood video!!!!!! wow!