I think the strongest line in the movie was Jo’s line to Marmie in the attic. She doesn’t want to be a wife, but she desires companionship. I can’t believe how incredibly complex that one snippet of dialogue is.
Roman Natale i also thought it was beautiful. you see so many women in stories who have to be independent because it makes them “stronger” or “‘more badass”, which isn’t true. independence can be a great thing, but it can also be lonely, and there is nothing weak about being a woman in love. to see Jo struggle with how she feels about it and what she wants was so real & raw, and saoirse showed those feelings perfectly.
I was so frustrated in the theatre when during that scene, someone’s phone went off very loudly, making it hard to concentrate on the scene. I’ll have to go see it again
I read Little Women when I was 13 and it changed my life. When Jo refused Laurie's marriage proposal, it was the first time ever that I read a work of fiction that told me that you can say "No", esp to the handsome rich guy. It was amazing. I will be forever grateful for it.
I do agree it was the first time I heard it but it sucked because it was such a ship.If only the actors and directors weren't so good then I probably would have liked it
“For this Joe, loneliness is not the lack of a romantic partner. Loneliness is the cold tones of an empty attic haunted by the memory of one filled with golden light and laughter of best friends and sisters.” Oh my god. Oh my god I’m not ok. I thought I could watch a deconstruction of Little Women without crying but I was wrong. This story feels so personal to me and you just summed up why so succinctly.
I didn't want to see it and then I did. I never realized how much my childhood was attached to this book, so, watching Jo lose her childhood and mourn the loss of her friendship with Laurie I actually cried and mourned with her....so unexpected.
the last adaption felt like watching a painting... just gorgeous. the scene where laurie confesses his love for jo literally had me clutching my chest in the theater.
So glad you singled this scene out for comment. I was astounded by the 2 second shot of Lauries bottom lip when Jo is imploring him to understand why she is refusing him. He is so young and full of feelings for Jo that he has had for so very long. He is crushed and the longer she goes on, the more unbearable it is for him. I think Gerwig directed this perfectly!
Dena Pattison agreed! Crazy how the story is literally about women’s ambitions and talents being lessened by society... and then Gerwig’s directing got snubbed in every award lmao.
I love the way the 2019 version depicted Amy. Instead of a villain, she was a slightly self centered realist. She knew how everything worked and made sure to use that to get what she wanted. She’s the only one that gets everything : love, money, kid, the opportunity to do what she loves to do. And though a lot of people disagree, I liked Amy with Laurie. Jo didn’t love him, while Amy had a crush on him since she was a teenager. Laurie tried, Jo rejected him and he was allowed to move on.
Me too I love Emys character , and she meant to be with Laurie . I just don’t like in 1994 they didn’t show a lot about her when she got old . In 2019 I like only the fact they portraited her really good in old version . But 2019 they should have choose someone else to play her young version .
@@angelaprifti8839 no I liked the way they showed the young version of amy. Unlike in the 1994 one where she was a literal small child being prayed on by Laurie
Gerwig’s film feels like watching people live, she does this thing in her films. It doesn’t feel force nor fake, it feals like memories of real people the way the book speaks, at least to me.
Zoe K. It’s a movie about a vapid high schooler who thinks she’s deep, and matures by learning that she’s actually kind of selfish and mean both to her parents and her best friends. She’s not supposed to be a likeable character, she’s supposed to be real. It’s a wonderful slice-of-life movie, and if that’s not your thing that’s fine.
I agree about Gerwig's films! Both Ladybird and Little Women felt like watching real people live their lives. And honestly, the actors do SUCH a phenomenal job of showing raw feelings. And I love that. Honestly, I love movies that make me cry and feel all the feelings.
Jennifer There definitely was a more modern feel. I didn’t mind it because it seemed to fit the style of the film, but that’s my mindset after watching the whole thing. During the film, I wasn’t sure about some of the modern flair. So I absolutely get where you’re coming from. But I think that that style helps us to see these people as... well, people. Just like us. Not just snapshots of another time in history.
Though I'd bet that was just the exterior and that the interior was a separate set, both for preservation concerns as well as practical filmmaking reasons.
@@taniap5361 In that case, Alcott's estate must've had tremendous trust in the Sony executives, writer-director Greta Gerwig, the cast, and the crew. That, plus getting paid a handsome sum of money, I'm sure. ^_^
Something I loved about the 2019 version was how they managed Amy. She was my favourite character in the whole movie - all other adaptations (in my opinion) show her as an annoying child and then a money hungry adult who looks down on Jo. In this movie, by showing her as an adult and then as a child, flushes out her character and shows her as a real character instead of a prop in the background, only there to show the audience how Jo is expected to act. Amy was often pushed down to hold Jo up, and seeing all the women - but especially Amy - as whole people in this new movie has me falling in love with a new side of an already beautiful story. P.S I loved your video it was amazing!
Rachel Peat i completely agree and absolutely loved her internal struggle with Laurie. it shows a different side to her feeling a deep responsibility to marry wealthy for her family and her need for wealth comes from love and feeling burdened
Yes! I actually liked the subtle foreshadowing of Amy and Laurie ending up together by having a bit of a pregnant pause in the scene where they first meet. And the film kept expanding on their relationship instead of it being a total and complete surprise in the end.
I think the 2019 version shows that Amy and Jo are in fact, quite similar. It devotes a fair amount of time to showing both their creative ambitions, they both recognise the economic elements of marriage, and their dreams are more similar than those of Meg. Jo and Amy share a desire for “freedom”, Jo moves to New York and Amy visits Paris. While they are different in thought process, they are similar in ambition and spirit.
@@neptoon928 I just did my yearly binge of that mini series the other day 😂😂🙌 I just rewatched Greta's Little Women so I came to rewatch this video too lol
I’ve only seen the 2019 version but I liked the flashback structure since it really highlights Joe’s nostalgia and present-day loneliness, and the way she feels like she is losing that childhood happiness from her memories.
There's a coziness to the 1994 version that I really, really love and I thought Winona Ryder and Claire Danes's performances where excellent. It's my favorite adaptation and I love watching it during the Christmas holidays.
Winona Ryder brought something special to the character of Joe for me and will always be my favourite. Even in a cultural context Winona rarely played the pretty girl on screen, she was more the social misfit, the 'strange and unusual'. So her casting and performance flowed naturally. She and Christian Bale had the best chemistry as well, he was not so pained as Timothee was - more full of laughter than lingering looks.
idk i thought the bale laurie was really creepy toward jo. in the proposal scene she literally says “no” several times and he forces himself on her anyway-seemed really out of character to me.
I love Winona, but that version is my least favorite. It is true how different things appeal to people for different reasons. How astounded Louisa would be today with the perpetual life of her story !
I feel like the 2019 version got the relationships between sisters better, especially the physically violent side. I came out of that with my sister really seeing our own relationship in them.
I feel like that's just Greta's thing. You come out of her movies thinking "Jeeez those people felt so real". I personally feel like she's writing my life... even when the events aren't the same as tho I've lived but just... it's so personal and real that it feels like I know the characters or i'm one of them. I don't know if it makes any sense. To me, You have either experienced these kind of stories or feelings just writes about IRL and can relate or you haven't.
The tensions between Jo and Amy were very realistic in Gerwig’s film. I don’t have a sister, just brothers, but the mean-spirited act of Amy burning her manuscript rang true. IMHO. Jo was not kind to Amy, stole her spotlight, etc. I enjoyed the development of all the characters but especially these two.
I feel it portrays more than just sisterly bonds and relationships, I believe Greta wrote this adaption in a way, where any kind sibling relationship (male, female or genderless as a whole) can relate to the March sisters, and I find it quite beautiful because of that. Because as a man and also having a brother, I could put my thoughts, feelings and emotions, and also mu relationship with my brother into the March sisters' relationships. I felt so emotionally connected to the March Sisters', as did my brother when we saw it together. We couldn't help but lean on each other as we cried and felt our feelings and experiences being spoken and felt through the sisters on screen. Truly an amazing film.
To me it seemed like in the 2019 version, Jo and Laurie’s relationship was more obviously platonic. While it was very playful in the 1994 version, I still felt a lot more love and affection between the characters. Maybe that’s just me though.
totally, they were running around, goofing with each other (the ball?), i felt like you it was more platonic, that's why i liked jo with bhaer and laurie with amy
The 1994 adaptation will always be my favorite simply because of Beth's death scene. I'm not exactly sure why but it's the only one out of all of them that really got to me. I sobbed the first time I saw it and I still sob everytime I watch it. Claire Danes is the best Beth
Same! I still vividly remember this scene and I haven't watched it since I was a child (though I really need to haha). Just goes to show how impactful that scene really was
I just watched it last night. That scene when Amy explained why she intended to marry a wealthy man and about the plight of women in society was just amazing. I got chills all over. Her delivery was spot on. Cold and calculating with just a hint emotion, but she wasn't angry at the world. She was simply making it clear that that was the hand she was dealt as a woman and she was going to play it well. Brilliant performance by Florence Pugh. I can't wait to see what she does next. She was so captivating in this film!
Back in '94 I did a 'good deed' and took my nieces to see "Little Women." I was shocked that i was drawn into the story of the March sisters. It's a surprise i've never forgotten. Today i bribed my granddaughters [age 16/18] with 'Skywalker' tix to attend with me. Near the end, both whispered to me thru tears that they were finally gonna read the novel i'd gifted them years ago. So I get home and wonder about the differences in the four versions; and i find this video essay! Insightful, humorous, great writing, narration and editing. What gift for us! Many thanks and have wonderful holiday...
This is such a beautiful story, thank you for sharing this and for being such a great grandparent. Sharing moments like this with family members is so important and I am genuinely so moved by this. Xxx
I don't agree with your conclusion that we have to change a story to make it more relevant to our times. Classics exist because there's always something relevant to every generation no matter how the world has changed. Even if Jo doesn't get her perfect ending or becomes completely independent, the fight to do so means more than the ending she gets. People read books written hundreds of years ago because there's always something we can learn and something we can empathize with. I'm not against creative liberty at all, but I don't like the idea that we HAVE to change something because 'the ethics of the time' it was written were different. We have seen many classic novels adapted and readapted over time...and yet people still gravitate to and enjoy the adaptations that are the true to the time period and book.
I absolutely agree! Your point holds true for the same reasons Shakespeare is still relevant: these stories capture human experience and authenticity and reflect it back to us. To claim we must fundamentally change old stories/history to make them/it fit with “modern ethics” isn’t true, is harmful, and it’s kind of insulting to the intelligence of viewers. Creative liberties, diverse casting, and critical thinking about the storyline and message are so so important and shouldn’t be sacrificed, but they can 100% exist alongside staying true to a story. It kind of reminds me of actresses refusing to wear the undergarments that go with the period; it’s accurate to the story, your character, and the culture you’re portraying. If you have the fame/pull to change the costume design, why not make sure everyone’s undergarments actually fit so they aren’t painful? And if you really truly can’t stand them for some reason, don’t accept roles in period films.
@@sylvan44 A good example is Pride and Prejudice. It was one of the first 'rom coms' ever written, back in the Georgian era, and yet it still appeals to many modern readers today. There have been multiple adaptations and modern retellings, but in the end, people still love the original above all.
It's intriguing seeing Ronan on talk shows. She selects ultra-modern designer creations and is very cosmopolitan. It's an intriguing dichotomy when her recent role has been a period character or shy and awkward.
@@lindakirk2252 I guess they wanted to do something different because if they just play the film chronologically it would pretty much be just a carbon copy of the older versions.
The thing about 1994's version is the soundtracks accompanying each scenes so endearingly .... the costumes were looking authentic and something about the dynamic from the beginning to the end. I guess the flow of the screenplay. For example, when you feeling so upset, and then it flipped up to optimistic scenes out of nowhere. It just showcasing the complexity of the whole events which spanned over decades. The camera work are gorgeous as well, just my opinion
Justice for Amy was finally served! Just got home from the film and cannot stop thinking about how dreamy it was. I grew up loving the '94 version and it will always have a special place in my heart but this version really soared for me. I loved a more in depth look at the sisters other than Jo. I also thought Timothee Chalamet was an excellent Laurie. His chemistry with both Florence Pugh & Saorise Ronan was so lived in. I also really loved Laura Dern as Marmie. The scene with Saorise when they talk about anger left me breathless!
mollierose that scene with Marmie and Jo is my favourite in the movie. I rewatched ‘94 version so many times during my childhood and teens, but that was a scene where I got completely sold to this one. It was so real.
Yes! I loved and connected with Amy so much more in this one! And her falling in love and marrying Laurie didn’t seem so out of no where. Also did you notice how Amy turned Fred down before she found out Laurie left to make something of himself (unlike the ‘94 version)? I absolutely loved that!
My only issue with Amy in this new version is that she looked too old. She's supposed to be around 13 (??) at first but the actress is about 23. I did love how her connection to Laurie was established throughout the movie, though.
Unpopular opinion: I liked Bhaer. I thought he was Jo’s intellectual match, and he did believe in her writing. It’s been a long time since I read the book as a girl, but I remember him proposing to her as they walked with an umbrella. That seemed romantic in its own quiet way.
I liked Bhaer as well. I don't get why people don't see why he was great for Jo. I understand that Alcott was forced to marry Jo off, but I think once she accepted that it was inevitable she did her best to create a charachter that intellectually suited Jo. I don't think she would have short shifted Jo in any way.
Me too, the book gives you enough time to get over Laurie and move on, which is real life. Partners that can respect and challenge each other make for a great marriage. I haven’t seen the new one. The review makes it sound like they made him a boy toy, and if that is true, it is unfortunate.
Same. And I dislike the idea that, in order to be really strong and independent, a woman has to do everything completely on her own, or only with the help of other women. All people need other people. It's not only female people who have something valuable to offer. Many of us need other people in a romantic or sexual way, and many women benefit from the relationships we have with men who encourage and support us. There's nothing wrong with that, and that's what Bhaer does for Jo. It does a disservice to women everywhere to imply that wanting or needing that kind of emotional partnership and support is weak or wrong. I find their relationship beautiful, and I find a Jo who wants badly to be understood and loved romantically far more relatable than a Jo who needs no one and only cares about her career and her sisters. In the 1994 version, Jo is restless at home, both because she wants to see the world and become a writer *and* because she feels misunderstood and out of place. Even with her sisters, she's lonely, and it's Bhaer who changes that by seeing and understanding her better than anyone else ever did. He encourages her to write about her real life because he understands her. Needing to be seen and understood isn't weakness.
OMG thank you!! I thought I was the only one who liked them together. Even as his own character, I found Bhaer to be much more charming than Laurie. Not that I didn’t love Laurie, but he was your typical “boy next door” who of course everyone instantly falls for. Bhaer just had this mystic and sophistication to him that was alluring. I also loved how the relationship between Laurie and Amy developed because it felt real and how it showed that love is about bringing out the best in each other, just like Bhaer and Jo brought out the best in each other. Personally, even if the author didn’t want Jo to marry at first, she did a great job depicting the love that developed between her and Bhaer as well as how time can have a way with making people fall in love with each other as seen with Amy and Laurie.
This is the comment I was looking for. English is not my first language so I don't know what she means when she says that. Does she mean "f*u*k? Is not ovbius to me. Help, please.
salexo9 I agree I also liked this, but I was 23 in 1994 and now, I’ll confess, I really like the idea of a Jo free to learn about the world on her own. Not sure if it feels more modern or more mature to want to see women supported by men rather than just equal.... i would say refreshing. I choose not to see this adaptation as a detraction from the 1994 version.
Little Women was the first novel given to me by my Irish Gran when I was 7. She wrote: "Remember, you aren't just a girl, you are Irish". I'm 74. I still have this book with its linen cover and beautifully drawn art panels. I try to read it once a year. I'll pass it down to my grand daughter when the time is right for her. And remind her "she's not just a girl...". Thank you so much for your review of this wonderful book and the movies made from it. Yes, of course, I'm Jo (in my mind) and proud of all I have accomplished. Happy New Year/Decade. Much happiness and success to you. Best, t
I read it at 7 by my own will , but how I would love to do that. I'm 16 so I have no grandkids or daughters to pass this onto, but if I do, I hope I remember to . Thank you for this beautiful snippet of your wonderful life.
I wonder if you've got the same edition that I have? There's a beautifully etched drawing on almost every page. Mine has a glossary of American expressions at the back - to help English readers understand American slang of the 1880's!
1994 my favorite!! Wynona, Susan Sarandon, and Claire Daines are legendary. Love, love that version!!! The scene where Beth dies gets me every time!!! Anyway, a marvelous version!! ❤️
My personal favorite is the one from 49. I will be seeing the latest adaptation today, because if there can be 17 million James Bond movies, why can't there be the another little women.
The "17 million James Bond movies" are all DIFFERENT, though. Cassie, if you're gonna discuss something like that, please educate yourself on the differences first.
@@ktmcgoogle7927 Spoiler alert: I was sobbing several times at Jo's storyline, like when Amy burned her manuscripts, or obviously when Beth died, or after Jo's monologue in attic about how women are fit for other things than love, or when she realized (or perhaps thought) she loved Laury and then he showed up telling her that he had secretly married her sister. Jo's also THE girl that I identify with, since I am into storytelling/writing myself and also have similar attitude about romantic relationships and how a woman can do on her own but yet I still feel that kind of loneliness. I also know the movie's based on a 1860's novel but I was still kinda disappointed that Jo was the only girl to actually live her artistic dream (we get an actress, a writer, a painter and a pianist and only one of them makes her dreams come true).
While I really enjoyed the 2019 version of the film, I do agree that it is more suited for people who are already familiar with the novel and other adaptations. I took my niece to watch the film, and she was frankly lost at points. The new version has almost a frenetic energy to it, and the back and forth between timelines doesn't necessarily allow the viewer to live with the characters and watch them grow and change. As a result, the natural highs and lows of the story is slightly lost. In comparison, the 1994 version is more accessible to a first-time viewer. The cast is just as great, and the audience is able to take the emotional journey with the characters. It makes me cry every time. For me, this would be the version I would recommend first. The 2019 version is great too, but I wish it was told in a more linear fashion. Or, it switched timelines less. The main thing the 2019 version did better was explore Amy's character more. On the flip side, I loved Claire Danes portrayal of Beth more. Anyways, both movies are wonderful. It just comes down to personal preference.
Or, if they’d been historically accurate with the costumes, it would have immediately shown if something was a flashback or not. You can’t mistake 1860s crinolines with 1870s bustles. And it would have assisted in the character development, given how much more adult bustle styles look (particularly helpful when it comes to Amy). I’m honestly still peeved that Durant won the Oscar for best costumes- they were atrocious! Took me out of the story completely. Can people just stop hiring her for historical movies? Because she did the same (if not worse) to Anna Karenina and Pride & Prejudice. What do Hollywood costumers have against historical fashion anyway? They obviously hate it, and then they give their actresses shitty, cheap, inaccurate corsets, so the actresses can go on speaking tours about how these actually very comfortable and practical undergarments are patriarchal torture devices! (This may be a particular soapbox of mine). anyway, the costuming was abysmal, imo. It actively made the movie harder to understand.
I went with a friend who didn't know the novel and she was also completely lost. Another aspect of the film I disliked was the woke speeches. It was so didactic and heavy handed. I particularly cringed when Marmee told the lone black woman in the film (who appeared in one scene and didn't even get a name) that she was ashamed of her country. A deconstruction of the book is a great idea but the ham-fisted way this was executed left me cold.
never read the book or watched a single adaptation before watching the 2019 version and I was not confused at all lol, maybe more attention needed to be paid
@@AlisaRivera_aka_Li I was afraid it would shove woke discourse down out throats the way many films and tv series do nowadays. Thanks for confirming this, I'm not sure I want to watch now. I love the 1994 version. About the latest adaptation being "more suited for people who are already familiar with the novel and other adaptations", I observed the same thing with the most recent adaptation of Jane Eyre.
I've read the book multiple times and seen all the film versions mentioned here, and I was still lost at some points in the 2019 version. My daughter, however, who is much less familiar with any of them, was not, and liked this version herself. Myself, I prefer the 1933 version because I love Katherine Hepburn as Jo. They really used her New England background and her ambiguous sexuality to advantage in the role.
HOT TAKE: Best Jo= Winona Ryder (Saoirse was close though she was phenomenal) Best Amy= Florence Pugh's Best Meg= Emma Watson Best Beth = CLAIR DANES Best Laurie= Christian Bale(Timothee again was tied tho) Best Marmie= Susan Sarandon
Yes, Claire Danes was the best Beth. Although I watched the last episode of the Maya Hawke version last night, and while I didn't much like it overall, I did like the way it showed Beth, as more of an adult woman who took responsibility for herself. She went to the doctor on her own, knew she was dying, kept it from the family to spare them. Not just a tragic angelic child.
You hit the nail on the head when you described the '94 version as "Theater-kid Jo", and I think that was what I loved so much about that version of Jo; she wasn't conventional feminine as her sisters and women of the time were, but she wasn't as "full-blown tom boy" as the other film versions were (and I would include the 2019 version in that too). I think for many writers, an "unconventional woman" = tom boy, but there are many out there who identify as "unconventional" but who would also say "no, I'm not into physical activity or sports, it's much more intellectual or artistic" and so that portrayal of Jo who loves to cosplay in the attic and write the 19th century version of fanfic is very appealing. Basically, the '94 Jo is the one you would find on Tumblr today, sharing her creations and getting into fandom arguments that eventually turn into political/feminist ones
I don’t think the reason Jo is depicted as a tomboy in so many adaptations is because of the writers’ inability to write unconventional women that aren’t tomboys, but because Jo is written as a tomboy by Alcott. There are multiple mentions of Jo enjoying hockey and other sports, she longs to join the boys and talk and act like them more than once, etc. I appreciate the ‘94 adaptation for its creative approach to Jo’s character, and I agree that there should be more variety in representing “unfeminine” characters, but I don’t think the other depictions are necessarily bad either, they’re just loyal to the source material.
The 1994 version is my favorite of all time. The soundtrack sends shivers down your spine. The connection you make with the characters is incredible. It gives me hope. The film warms heart.
I love the 1949 and 1994 versions the best, the 1994 version being my absolute favorite. The story, to me, isn't just about not needing a man but Jo's realization that she's growing up, everyone will go on to do their own thing, that family feeling and the free feeling of childhood will go away, facing the fact that we all have to grow up, move on and go our separate ways. It's not a good feeling, it's one that most of us can relate to in one way or another.
Moments that made me cry in the 2019 version: -Mr Laurence giving the piano to Beth, and their conversation after that. -Jo's speech about loneliness (damn that hit close to home) -Jo seeing her novel carefully crafted and published
My grandma's favorite movie ever was the 1949 version of Little Women. She just passed away, her funeral is later today. I remember how much she loved that version and I'm missing her a lot.
What the 2019 Little Women taught me 1. I’ve become much more sentimental and I cry at movies much more easily as I’ve gotten older 2. “Life is too short to be angry with one’s sisters”
I just saw the most recent version. I liked the character development of Amy, but although Florance Pugh acted the role well she was too old to play a 12 year old.
I also thought this was a huge problem in the flashbacks. For people unfamiliar with the text (like my husband) it was jarring and confusing at points.
While I do love the 1994 version (and believe me, I do), the 2019 adaptation has raised the bar to the next level. The writing, the ACTING!! The scenes with Jo and her publisher seemed to reflect true struggles and triumphs of Louisa May Alcott’s life. Saoirse Ronan was BRILLIANT!!!
I agree, the 2019 version was amazingly well-written, brought a lot to the story, and had some excellent casting, but it also was lacking in some areas where 1994 shone - for example, the immense affection and playfulness plus the overall development of Jo and Laurie's relationship, the score, and Beth.
@@Eva-bd2rm really? I thought the sisters and Laurie were a bit exaggerated in their playfulness if anything. And Beth's selflessness and Amy's inner growth along with Jo's loneliness (or childhood nostalgia in general) were the aspects that really stood out to me.
The 2019 movie is the objective better movie , it is not the better novel adaptation though . The movie is not about little women but just grown women . The 94 one was about girls not adults .
I respectfully disagree. To me, the 2019 version felt the least genuine in comparison to the 1994 version. It also disturbed me that they chose to not have two actresses for Amy bc it was too weird to see a grown adult act like a child. They also didn't develop Laurie and Jo's relationship enough or Jo and Baer's. Or Jo and Beth's. In the 1994 version I could very much feel Jo's loss of Beth but in this one I couldn't. I was still sad just not the same way I was in the 1994 version. It's probably to do with the nostalgia to some extent but I really do prefer the 1994 version.
@@Emilia-wv1kj i agree i didn't like the 2019 one at all. it was impossible to relate to and care about the characters. the jumping timeline didn't help at all, and when Beth died i hardly cared. there was no proper development of any of the characters
Yes Anne with an E is a brand new take expanding the world and characters and exploring storylines that are relevant to Anne and our time. It's beautiful and we'll done but different, a new and insightful take.
My thought, in having read the novel a couple of times as a child and recently again as an adult, is that Louisa May Alcott probably didn't feel romantic love for men, and so her Jo genuinely thinks she won't ever marry and genuinely is baffled by her qualitatively different love for Laurie. And so if one with that persona is forced to write a heroine who marries, it makes sense that it would be to a male who is older (i.e., less sex driven) and intellectual. That was probably the most "natural" hetero relationship Ms Alcott could imagine for Jo. Because that romance in the novel was contrived, any version of it is going to be like trying to put a square peg in a round hole. It was never natural to begin with (because it wasn't organic to the author's vision) so it's sort of never going to feel completely "right," I think. That being said, what's interesting to me is that, though I'm saying this, I related very much to Jo as a heterosexual, tomboyish woman, and even to her romance with Professor Baer because what makes me feel intimately connected with a man I'm attracted to is being SEEN as the person I am. So to me, the 1990's version does the best job of this. Baer is sufficiently physically attractive for the romance to be believable; he is intellectual (always attractive to thinking women); and he sees and admires and supports Jo for the person she is. Plus, I've always been attracted to compassionate introverts who are driven intellectually ;)
Louisa May Alcott was attracted to men. As a teen she was infatuated with Ralph Waldo Emerson & would serenade him & write (but not send) love letters to him & secretly leave flowers for him. Also, Jo was obsessed with writing cheesy romances. I wonder if her preference to not have Jo marry could have to do with how Louisa was single, most likely because Louisa's dad failed at providing for them & led them through a lot of instability, which caused her to become obsessed with making money to support her family. She tried to be the rock of stability for her family.
@@sarahd1706 Would marrying not provide her that stability too though? And I'm pretty sure there's something flying around there from L.M. Alcott about how she fell in love with many pretty girls throughout her life and that she felt she had a mans soul lol. A lot of gay women like boys/men when they are young girls and teens. Doesn't mean they can't eventually realise they're not actually into men, they were just expected to be into them and it felt natural at the time. Trust me, when I think of some of the men I was attracted to in my teens I shudder. Could be the same for her. But who knows
The 1994 version made the Jo/Baer romance believable because it stresses that Jo's background is that of a nonconformist family who believed in Emersonian ethics of equality, fair play and being the best one could be. Baer also comes from a similar background of the German philosophy that inspired Emerson in the first place. They are intellectually and ideologically well-matched.
Winona was good. June Allison was surprisingly one if the nicest versions. The most recent version, the actress portrayed Jo in a way that was much too modern and bold for the time.
This is not only a phenomenal video in its own right, but also the best and most insightful review of Gerwig's adaptation I've come across. I think you are one of the few reviewers familiar enough with the source material and the author to appreciate what she was going for. I never liked the story myself, but your video has made me want to check out the new movie.
It's not mentioned in the video - time! and fair enough - but to me Laura Dern's Marmee is a huge part of why this film works. If one reads past the sugar in the book, Mrs. March is tough as hell, while being completely lovable. I love Dern in the part!
Professor Bhaer wasn´t an afterthought. Louisa had crushes on her philosopher friends Henry-David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emmerson and Fritz has elements from both of them. During the american civil war she also took care of an American-German soldier who had a striking resemblance to Friedrich´s character. Louisa also spoke German and visited Germany a couple of times. Little Women is highly influenced by German literature. In the 19th century, Fritz was a funny match because there was lots of discrimination towards German immigrants.
I've read two biographies of Alcott and I agree with you about the Thoreau - Emerson and German cultural influences. However, it is also true that the publishers and her young, mostly female readers did, indeed, put a great deal of pressure for her to write Jo into marriage, something she really did not want to do, but she had her whole family depending on her financially at that point. Given that, I see Jo's marriage to the professor as symbolic code for making a commitment to a life of art and writing.
Beth's death hurts a lot more in the 2019 version because the parallels between the past and the present gave it more emotional impact, emphasizing on the symbolism how Beth's life is over and so is their childhood.
Speaking as a male that have great emotional investment in those characters in the 94' version as this new one, Laurie rejecting continue to be as painful as the new one, and trying to make the professor more handsome continue to be as stupid decision then as it is now.
Nothing compares to the 1994 masterpiece. My favorite score of Thomas Newman who brought life, warmth and epic emotion. The sets, camera angles, lighting, costumes, script, acting, editing flowed beautifully. It felt like I was there in the 1800s. Every actor in that film were beyond excellent.
I loved the 2019 structure and how it flipped back and forth between the timelines as the golden glow of the past made it seem nostalgic and special which further emphasised Jo’s loneliness and desperation
i absolutely agree, i just wish that the costuming had been historically accurate (as well as accurate to the actual characters) to both define the flashbacks and set the cultural tone. there was so much missed opportunity there, especially for a film that could absolutely have afforded accuracy and staying true to the characters in that way
Winona Ryder as Jo and Claire Daines with her hunting performance ( that death scene always brings me to tears.)will have my heart forever. You did such an amazing job at dissecting all these movies I can only imagine how much time this took. Thanks so much and for that I will check out the newest even though I seriously doubt that it will live up to my favorite.
I adore the 1994 version, so was almost nervous going into the 2019. How wrong I was to be! It was a marvel and a unique telling. But.... Pretty sure Batman will always be my Teddy
MY OPINION: best jo: tied with saoirse & winona (i love them both too much too pick) best young amy: KIRSTEN DUNST 1994 i loved her as young amy so much best old amy: florence pugh 2019 best beth: claire danes 1994 best meg: trini alvarado 1994 (didn’t like emma watson for this role) best laurie: christian bale 1994 (i LOVE timothee but i don’t think he was right for this role, so talented tho) best marmie: susan sarandon 1994 hands DOWN my personal favorite adaptation is 1994 because it just pulls on my heart strings so so much, and i think that the sister relationships are better developed. 2019 is good too but i just have a special place in my heart for 1994. also 1994 had a wayyyyy better soundtrack.
I mean, having Winona Ryder, Claire Danes, Susan Sarandon, Christian Bale and a newcomer such as Kirsten Dust (it was her breakthrough year with also Interview With The Vampire), that was a recipe for a masterpiece.
Agree with everything. Older Amy is the main character I found lacking in 1994 version, if she had been a little like the newer version the 1994 film would be flawless to me. Also, Gabriel Macht was great, even though looking back the age gap is quite daunting, it's accurate to the time period and the novel
2019 version saved amy’s character and they hv beautiful cinematography but i hate how inaccurate their costume is. That, that is the biggest problem lol
@@myytchanneldinakoha8498 LOL you must have no idea what political correctness actually is because the costume changes had NOTHING to do with being PoLiTiCaLLy cOrReCt.
Myytchanneldinako Ha what does PC have to do with it? The fact is, the young times were set in the 1860s, and the adult times in the 1870s. Where the fashion was so obviously different, and actually would have made the story much clearer when it comes to how much time has passed. And the more adult look of the bustle era would have actually helped in the character development of Amy, particularly as they’re using the same actress. Plus, even the 1860s stuff was just plain inaccurate - no bonnets, looked like they weren’t wearing corsets at times, hair done wrong, wrong materials and on and on. But the costumes being awful (I have no idea how they won the Oscar for them) has nothing to do with being PC. I just greatly dislike the costumer- who also ruined the 2005 P&P as far as I’m concerned.
I appreciate the adaptations for bringing attention to the "now", but I still love the 1994 version. The relationships between the sister and between Jo and Laurie had more depth.
They were the same ages or younger than the other actors in the other movies? Florence Pugh, for example was about 2 years older playing Amy than Joan Bennett.
the 2019 version in terms of casting made Amy look way to old in the scenes where she was supposed to be younger, but the acting made up for it because at times she was painfully childish. after watching the 2019 version i actually forgot that Amy was supposed to be the youngest
By the way, that was NEVER in the book! Because they wrote it for Katharine Hepburn in the '30s one, it just got passed along, like a lot of other "movie conventions" that aren't in the book.
@@ferociousgumby Wrong! It was in the book - with a quick google search, I found Meg telling Jo not to say it at the ball they were going to and it appeared in the book other times.
ferociousgumby have you read the books? It a pretty constant reference from jo in both Little women itself, and in its sequels little men and jo’s boys
Joan Bennett and Elizabeth Taylor played mother and daughter in Father of the Bride and Father's Little Dividend. In the latter film there’s a scene where the whole family is trying to pick a name for the impending baby. Billie Burke as Taylor's mother in law suggests Laurie, a name she’d loved ever since she read Little Women. "You remember how dear he was"
This was an amazing video. It starts out like a scholarly dissertation but instead of just reading the difference of the Jo's, clips of each films are included to demonstrates how each Jo is different and also plays to the fact that each film is not only a reflection of the author but to the time period each film was produced. The committment to research actually articles written about each film shows that the creators of this video desire is to not only make an entertaining video of a beloved classic story but also an intellectual understanding why each film adaptation can be seen through modern interpretation.
please never stop yourself from making long videos. i would enjoy watching them either way! amazing work! going to become a patreon soon as you have become one of the best video essay-ist out there, rivaling even Lindsey Ellis (a deep personal favorite of mine)
10:57 audio "Oh my god" when they are spending the dollar I thought it was a male voice teasing Valley Girl bourgeoisie? Where is the addition of "Shoes" timestamped info please?
Thank you for pointing out that jo saying, "but I'm so lonely!" isn't her talking about romantic love!!!!! Everyone seems to think that and I feel like that would defeat the point of Jo's character. She just misses her happy childhood where her whole family was there. Beautiful video!
@@LifeInAConcreteBox nooooo, the 83 miniseries is the best. Though the 97 movie is the most amusing. I always get a good laugh out of watching Ciaran Hinds just scream all of his lines. edited to add: I take that back. I just remembered there's a bizarre black and white version where all of the conflict is gone, Jane calls Mr. Brocklehurst an "ugly old crocodile," and Adele falls into a flowerpot headfirst and gets stuck there. THAT is the most amusing Jane Eyre by far.
I am still waiting for a version which gives Professor Baer his due as a refugee from the German revolution of 1848 - inspired by the romantic and democratic ideals that fueled it. Surely that would have appealed to Jo with her sense of romance and adventure.
@@bentleyr00d -- not explicitly in the book, but I think it was written at a time when people were more familiar with German refugees. Certainly Professor Baer was an educated man who was familiar with art and music and opera and literature -- all of which carried independent and revolutionary ideas in Germany at the time. I would love to see this made more explicit in another movie version. I would also love to see the Boston-Brahmin class's anti-Irish and anti-Catholic prejudice, which is quite explicit in the book, acted out. Boston was full of Irish and German refugees at the time, and Marmee's social work involved understanding and mitigating their plight, but it is given no political or historic context in any of the movies.
I've seen the '33, '94, and 2019 versions; overall, the 2019 version is my favorite. It was the only one to make each sister a believable, fully realized human being; each sister had an intentional and necessary role in the overall story. All of the other versions of the story were kinda framed as "a story about Jo, her two sisters, and the third sister who dies". I loved how Gerwig emphasized each sister's unique idea of the exercise/function of womanhood in their society. The 2019 version also did the best job of framing the socioeconomic context and implications of the March sister's lives. The underlying current of the friction between the sisters made for enriched storytelling, and the use of flashback kept me engaged in a more immediate way.
During the scenes of Beth's past illness / present death, I cried my heart out, more than I ever have before. During a quiet moment in the film I realized that the entire theater was sobbing. ... And yes, Florence Pugh is fantastic.
I don't know why, but 2019 version is such a comfort movie for me...All flashback scenes with their childhood are perfection in the way they capture youth before returning us to the horrors and reality of the present. And the way Joe's love story intertwines with her negotiating her book deal and how we actually never know if she ended up with this dude or was she talking about the book ending is so heartwarming and also promising that we don't have to marry anybody to live a fullfilled life.
The 1994 adaptation has been a part of my life since I was 7 and it has become my go to Christmas film since I was 19!!! However, I'm going to be seeing the 2019 version tomorrow with my mother and am encouraging all my friends to go see it. I'm so happy to see this video from you and cannot thank you enough for this. A Merry Christmas to you and your loved ones ♥ ♥ ♥, thank you for all the videos you make and I cannot wait to see what's in store for 2020.
@@heresfrankbetches921 absolutely wonderful, I highly recommend watching it. It's been shot beautifully with the ensemble giving their all and you can tell how much they loved doing this film and how much love Greta Gerwig put into this film. In fact, I'm rewatching it again!
I loved two dialogues the most, the one that Amy is talking to Laurie why she wants to marry rich and how there is a difference between men and women and the part that Jo is talking to her mom confessing that she wants to marry laurie cause she is so lonely and how she is tired of people always thinking a girl should marry!
I will forever condemned the Hollywood Foreign press from snubbing Greta for her work in little women this year. It really does foreshadow the theme of the 2019 version of women having to be taken serious for their work
I'm mostly a purist when it comes to book to movie adaptations. So the 2019 one isn't something I much enjoyed. Seeing how each version sort of conforms to things that were happening at the time, does put some context into the writing, and so I can appreciate that I suppose.
Once again, a superb thought-provoking commentary on and comparison of a still beloved classic story. What can I say? If you aren't a tenured professor of film studies, you should be! Happy New Year!
I loved Christian Bale as Laurie, but I think Timothee is more how I imagine him when I read the book. Yes he was a bit skinny/young looking, but I found this age appropriate (and the actor is actually 24), and his acting completely sold me.
I personally loved the 2019 version, and it was the adaptation that really pushed me to finally read the book. It's very much a product of this generation, and being rather young it really resonated with me. That being said, while I only saw the 1994 version as a child and barely remember it, as I read the book I can't picture the 2019 cast as these girls. The 1994 version feels so much more fitting for the tone and voice of the story, and from the brief clips of the earlier versions I think it is the strongest of all in recapturing the spirit of the novel.
It's impossible for me to be unbiased. I was eleven when I watched the 1994 version and I took it to heart. I grew up ambitious and focused and it made me feel OK about not prioritizing relationships or being merely decorative. I'm 33, successful, and single. And I read my first edition Little Women every Christmas. But I'm looking forward to watching this version.
As much as I love Jessica Lange, Winona Ryder should have won the Best Actress Oscar for Little Women in 1994. And Katharine Hepburn should have won her first Oscar for Little Women instead of for Morning Glory.
For me, the best early Hepburn performance was in "Alice Adams." She broke my heart, even with the sappy ending the studio tacked onto it. It would've been far more powerful to have stuck to the book. My favorite "Little Women" films are 1933 and 1994.
Jessica lange should‘ve won for Frances but she won for supporting that year because they had to give the leading to sophies choice，so they owe Jessica a leading and Winona wasn’t strong enough to sweep that year, so.
As a huge fan of Louisa May Alcott's work, I must say that, in essence, LW2019 is the closest to the actual novel. But I must also say that, in my point of view, Greta Gerwig made some mistakes in the adaptation of the novel. 1. I didn't like the pacing, which was too slow, and full of flashbacks. What this does to the story is that we don't get to see the progression of the characters' personal growth in a timeline. 2. There are many comments here saying, "I loved that Amy wasn't portrayed as a spoiled child...". The problem is that in the novel, Amy is actually a spoiled child, who progresses into a fine lady of society who makes some fundamental changes in the way she sees the world. 3. I'm a doctor, and rheumatic fever patients don't look as rosy and lively as the Beth played by Eliza Scanden. The makeup crew did not study how a chronic heart patient looks like, especially in the brink of death. 4. Comparing Beth's last moments in LW2019 to LW1994, I prefer the latter, since it carries a great deal of emotional charge. In LW2019, she simply dies, in LW1994, she states that, as quiet and seemingly soft-charactered as she was in life, she was getting ahead of her sisters by being the first to go into the afterlife. Claire Danes takes the crown in the same scene here. 5. Although Timothee Chalamet is a great actor, I felt that his Laurie was too forced, relatively unnatural, especially in the scene where he tries to propose to Jo. Compare it to the same scene in LW1994, with Laurie played by Christian Bale, who plays him wonderfully, with a painful sensibility on the moment he's rejected by Jo. I think the role of Laurie was not fit for Chalamet. 6. Though the casting (except for Chalamet as Laurie) was excellent, if we stick to the book, the physical description of the girls does not match the one in the novel. Each girl was meticulously described by Louisa May Alcott, because they were all based on her and her real-life sisters (Anna, Elizabeth and May). I give a nod to LW1994, for casting actresses who fitted Alcott's physical description of the girls, i.e. Jo's a brunette with gray-brown eyes, Meg's also a brunette, but with blue eyes, the same goes for Beth, and Amy had curly blond hair, and blue eyes. Florence Pugh was the only one who physically fitted the character she was playing. And, Frederick Bhaer should have been older, Louis Garrel seems too young to play him. 7. Sticking to Florence Pugh, the only scene I didn't like from her was when she arrives at the Laurence's house with the rule hitting wound on her palm. I think Kirsten Dunst did it better here in LW1994. 8. The development of Jo and Frederick's relationship is better developed and adapted in LW1994. In LW2019, they lack complete chemistry. The same goes for Meg and John's relationship's development. The only thing you get from them is when they are discussing their economic struggles. But before and after that, there's nothing. 9. Another criticism for hair and makeup: the only one wearing a hairstyle that was fashionable during the Victorian Era was Amy. The other ones' hairdos were too modern, especially Marmee's. Married women did not accustom to wear their hairs down, whether totally of partially. 10. Meg's inner struggle during the summer week at Annie Moffat's house isn't shown in LW2019. It wasn't well shown either in LW1994. 11. Though Beth is seen playing with her dolls in LW2019, it's also notorious in the novel that she owns at least 3 kittens, which are not seen anywhere in the most recent adaptation. LW 1994 shows her both playing with her dolls and her kittens. The cats in the March household are even a matter of conversation in the novel, as it's established when Jo first encounters Laurie at the Gardiners' New Year's Eve party. 12. LW2019's Bhaer is critical of Jo's writing, but I cannot find in this version a sympathetic character. On the other hand, in LW1994, Bhaer (played masterfully by Gabriel Byrne), shows more appreciation for Jo's writings, while being critical of her. And I think the difference is the performance by both actors. Bhaer is supposed to love Jo, and that is shown with Byrne, so he criticizes her in a strong but kind way. I don't see any love from Louis Garrel when he tells Jo that she should write something on the level of her talent. Like I said before, no chemistry whatsoever. 13. The Alexandre Desplat soundtrack is totally forgettable. I've had Thomas Newman's 1994 soundtrack in my mind since then and to me, it's synonymous with Little Women (as we speak, I'm trying to remember any tune from Desplat's soundtrack, and I can't, I simply can't). So, even though LW2019, is closer to the novel, in context, it lacked a lot on the adaptation. In that sense, I prefer LW1994. It had a great casting, and a faster pace, without lacking substance.
I completely agree with most of your points, and while at first I felt the same about the 2019 portrayal of Jo's relationship with Bhaer, after watching this review it was interesting to hear about the reasoning behind making 2019 Bhaer more of an afterthought in order to give Jo's writing career more screen time, and at the end to show how her marriage to him was just a condition of the publisher's and not at all something Louisa May Alcott had intended to include. This gave me a whole new appreciation for the 2019 version. Ultimately, considering the alterations in 2019 to Amy and Bhaer, I have to say overall I think 1994 is the closest to the novel, but I'm so here for the LW2019 ending!
Agree with each word you wrote! I think 94' is a proper adaptation while 2019 tries to be an adaptation, a homage to the writer and twists of modernity all at once. So while it shines in a few parts(particularly Saoirse Ronan as Jo), overall it comes off as a confused film. I could not get over the fact that they actually wanted us to buy Florence Pugh as a 12 year old. She is damn good actress and I felt bad for her. Also Timothy and Emma were a miscast. Timothy for sure, Emma I don't know might have been the lack of any direction for her character.
Are you kidding I havent seen the 94 version which is a blessing so I don't have nostalgia goggles I'm sure Wynonna rider and Christian bale were great but I couldn't see the screen half the time because my eyes were watering so much all of them have such good character arcs in the new movie and the Laurie in the new one when he confessed his love I was dieing they both were phenomenal and I could really feel everyone's emotions
@@sarahsiddiqui6494 I didn't say it was better I said that looking at it without any other preference I loved everyone's performance when did I say it was better? 😂
I love the fact that in the 2019 version, they actually show how Jo getting married is an add-on. She has that conversation with the editor and it gets tacked on at the end.
Yes, Jo’s marriage is treated as an afterthought in the book as well. That’s why I think layering it with the “you have to marry off your heroine” speech is a smart choice.
I liked the 2019 version because it was set up differently, and I love that it hinted at the fact that Jo didn't end up with the professor - that that had to be written in for the publisher - but man, I did not feel anything that I normally feel when watching or reading Little Women. Starting with Jo in NYC already with the professor, and Beth already being really sick made it so when Beth died I didn't cry, and when Jo and Laurie didn't work out - I wasn't upset! It seemed without the actual story line taking place in the right order of events, I didn't have the normal attachment to the characters that I normally had - despite all of the great talent in the film. 1994 is still my favorite...
Honestly, the costuming in the 2019 adaptation (there were ugg boots in that movie) took me out of the story a lot. I really think the flashbacks would have worked better if the costuming didn't take too many liberties
I love the 1949 version: such beautiful, warm colors and a warm heart too, so christmassy. Otherwise, the latest BBC/PBS mini series was most satisfying and faithful to the original story, which needs time to unfold properly. So unless you can make a sprawling 4-hrs film like Gone With The Wind, a mini series seems more appropriate for a proper adaptation, and TV is also more intimate which fits the story well.
Although I grew up in the 90s, I did manage to catch the 49 version on tv before seeing the 94 LW and I did like June in the role-- but probably because I like Jo, period! However, you're right about how Christmassy it looks. Very pretty and cheerful
I know people like to say she was a lesbian but the original text and none of the adaptions (even the 94 and 2019 adaptions) give any hint of a sexual affection towards women. I think if anything Jo was asexual. It is clear that Laurie was her soulmate but that they were not meant to be married. Which I think would have been a good idea to explore in a future adaption or some form of an essay.
Anthony People interpret Jo this way because of knowledge of Alcott. Alcott based Jo on herself, and she herself never married and later wrote that she’d fallen in love with women before but never any men. So it’s not fans reading into the text so much as looking into how Jo matches up with Alcott herself and going from there.
I just watched the PBS bio again, and she DID have a close relationship with a young male student (German!). I don't think it was a conventional "romance", but she loved him. Her life didn't fit the mold in most ways. I'm not sure how that one ended.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone refer to Jo as a "lesbian", since, as you say, there's no hint of her having an intense female friendship/relationship. But I heard plenty of discussion that Jo is a queer icon, because she definitely gives off that vibe. But also, of course, since Alcott herself may have been same sex-attracted, there's also always been discussion of just how much of herself she put into Jo's character. I think you're right that Jo, as written, seems more asexual than anything. Which still fits with "queer icon", in my opinion!
2019 - Jo throws pillow at Meg - Jo and Aunt March scene - That day at the beach (their interaction with Laurie and his friends) - Jo tells Laurie that she can't love him in a romantic way - Jo asked Meg not to marry John - The attic scene with Marmie - Jo and Laurie having a heart to heart talk at the attic - 'life is too short to be angry at one's sisters' scene It surprised me even I already know the story. I cried harder in this version.
I wish people would read the other 2 books Little men and Jo’s boys. You see the growth of jo and her husband. Plus she becomes a mother to her own sons. The other sisters are seen plus their 2 daughters Meg’s and Amy’s. I LOVE the book and movies and feel there is always room for another version. But in the 2nd book you see why the Aunt leaves the house to Jo. She gives her the means to live on her own. To write but to have another way to make money in her limited society.
Amy was definitely the standout in 2019's Little Women. Florence Pugh's performance was the first time I really liked Amy. I wish you had included the PBS 2017/2018 Miniseries, but I understand why you didn't. I feel like it bridges the gap between '94 and '19 and because of that, it doesn't come across as particularly unique. I loved it though and it had my favorite portrayals of Marmie, Mr. March, Laurie, John Brooke, and Professor Bhaer. It was also the only adaptation that I can remember that showed Aunt March meddling with Meg's engagement. I think the miniseries was the most accurate adaptation of the book, but it wasn't as flashy as some of the others. (Also, the miniseries' Amy wasn't the best.)
The 1978 telemovie version shows her (briefly) meddling with Meg's engagement. Then Jo tells her off, and Aunt March says, well then, I'm taking Amy instead of you to Europe.
I def understand and appreciate the metaness of Jo ending up with Bhaer in the 2019 film, but I'm also a hopeless romantic and ngl the whole "my hands are empty, I have nothing to offer you" line paired with Jo taking his hands and saying they aren't empty because they're holding her...yeah that got me I may have teared up a little
I think the strongest line in the movie was Jo’s line to Marmie in the attic. She doesn’t want to be a wife, but she desires companionship. I can’t believe how incredibly complex that one snippet of dialogue is.
Roman Natale
i also thought it was beautiful. you see so many women in stories who have to be independent because it makes them “stronger” or “‘more badass”, which isn’t true. independence can be a great thing, but it can also be lonely, and there is nothing weak about being a woman in love. to see Jo struggle with how she feels about it and what she wants was so real & raw, and saoirse showed those feelings perfectly.
That line had me in tears.
That was incredible and moment I Jo became truly real for me
I was so frustrated in the theatre when during that scene, someone’s phone went off very loudly, making it hard to concentrate on the scene. I’ll have to go see it again
what did it mean to you?
I read Little Women when I was 13 and it changed my life. When Jo refused Laurie's marriage proposal, it was the first time ever that I read a work of fiction that told me that you can say "No", esp to the handsome rich guy. It was amazing. I will be forever grateful for it.
god, i love this comment so much
@@oof-wi7hp You shouldn't use blasphemy
I do agree it was the first time I heard it but it sucked because it was such a ship.If only the actors and directors weren't so good then I probably would have liked it
@@S_u_n_Flower_ you should mind your own business, not all english speakers are christians
@@oof-wi7hp I pray you find Jesus. No matter what language you speak you should know the sovereign Lord
"These Little Women...just how little are they?!" - Joey, 'Friends'
Do you want to put the book in the fridge ?
"Beth is really, really sick...”
@@julianaayu "Jo's there, but I don't think there's anything she can do"
"These little women!" - Ngl, Joey was the most wholesome fan of the books, and it's so good.
T Moon 😂
“For this Joe, loneliness is not the lack of a romantic partner. Loneliness is the cold tones of an empty attic haunted by the memory of one filled with golden light and laughter of best friends and sisters.”
Oh my god. Oh my god I’m not ok. I thought I could watch a deconstruction of Little Women without crying but I was wrong. This story feels so personal to me and you just summed up why so succinctly.
Next Stop- Everywhere she is a GENIUSSS
Next Stop- Everywhere I have three sisters, and that is how I feel about them. Luckily we have a strong relationship! (I am the oldest)
I struggled not to cry the whole dang movie!
That's so obviously one of the important themes of the source material, too. I wasn't sure I wanted to watch this new adaptation, but now I might.
I didn't want to see it and then I did. I never realized how much my childhood was attached to this book, so, watching Jo lose her childhood and mourn the loss of her friendship with Laurie I actually cried and mourned with her....so unexpected.
the last adaption felt like watching a painting... just gorgeous. the scene where laurie confesses his love for jo literally had me clutching my chest in the theater.
That scene HURT me when he's like "you knew this was coming" and she's like "I don't want anything to change" ouch ouch ouch
@Ariana Daiyan - Well said.
hammertapping to you
So glad you singled this scene out for comment. I was astounded by the 2 second shot of Lauries bottom lip when Jo is imploring him to understand why she is refusing him. He is so young and full of feelings for Jo that he has had for so very long. He is crushed and the longer she goes on, the more unbearable it is for him. I think Gerwig directed this perfectly!
Dena Pattison agreed! Crazy how the story is literally about women’s ambitions and talents being lessened by society... and then Gerwig’s directing got snubbed in every award lmao.
I love the way the 2019 version depicted Amy. Instead of a villain, she was a slightly self centered realist. She knew how everything worked and made sure to use that to get what she wanted. She’s the only one that gets everything : love, money, kid, the opportunity to do what she loves to do.
And though a lot of people disagree, I liked Amy with Laurie. Jo didn’t love him, while Amy had a crush on him since she was a teenager. Laurie tried, Jo rejected him and he was allowed to move on.
Me too I love Emys character , and she meant to be with Laurie . I just don’t like in 1994 they didn’t show a lot about her when she got old . In 2019 I like only the fact they portraited her really good in old version . But 2019 they should have choose someone else to play her young version .
I never saw Amy as a villain in any version. She was just a child
A beautiful example that love needs a right time.
Ya but Laurie is a bad person and kind of took advantage of Amy just because he couldn't have Joe
@@angelaprifti8839 no I liked the way they showed the young version of amy. Unlike in the 1994 one where she was a literal small child being prayed on by Laurie
Gerwig’s film feels like watching people live, she does this thing in her films. It doesn’t feel force nor fake, it feals like memories of real people the way the book speaks, at least to me.
@Zoe K. but ladybird wasn't meant to be thought provoking. it's not some deep philosophical movie.
Zoe K. It’s a movie about a vapid high schooler who thinks she’s deep, and matures by learning that she’s actually kind of selfish and mean both to her parents and her best friends. She’s not supposed to be a likeable character, she’s supposed to be real. It’s a wonderful slice-of-life movie, and if that’s not your thing that’s fine.
I agree about Gerwig's films! Both Ladybird and Little Women felt like watching real people live their lives. And honestly, the actors do SUCH a phenomenal job of showing raw feelings. And I love that. Honestly, I love movies that make me cry and feel all the feelings.
I disagree. To me it felt so forced. And the way they spoke to one another was way too modern. Also...Timothee was so miscast.
Jennifer There definitely was a more modern feel. I didn’t mind it because it seemed to fit the style of the film, but that’s my mindset after watching the whole thing. During the film, I wasn’t sure about some of the modern flair. So I absolutely get where you’re coming from. But I think that that style helps us to see these people as... well, people. Just like us. Not just snapshots of another time in history.
Fun fact: the March house in the 2019 movie was Louisa May Alcott's actual house.
Though I'd bet that was just the exterior and that the interior was a separate set, both for preservation concerns as well as practical filmmaking reasons.
@@Wired4Life2 Nope. If I'm correct, they also stayed in the house as guests to familiarise themselves with the set before filming commenced.
@@taniap5361 In that case, Alcott's estate must've had tremendous trust in the Sony executives, writer-director Greta Gerwig, the cast, and the crew. That, plus getting paid a handsome sum of money, I'm sure. ^_^
@@elizapotter4501 Ahh, so I was mostly correct.
It’s the same in the 94 version
The Awkward moment when you realize that Kirsten Dunst was pretty much the only child who played Amy.
The actress playing beth was just a few years older than dunst. The 94 version had teens playing teens instead of 20 to 30 year olds
@@marionarda2790 Claire was 15 not a child.
@@latroletteeeee 15 playing 13 is fine . 20 playing 12 is not
@@marionarda2790 I was talking about Kirsten babe.. I don't know why you're dragging Claire into this.
@@latroletteeeee I always can't bear to see other versions of Amy, because they are too old at the beginning of movie.
Something I loved about the 2019 version was how they managed Amy. She was my favourite character in the whole movie - all other adaptations (in my opinion) show her as an annoying child and then a money hungry adult who looks down on Jo. In this movie, by showing her as an adult and then as a child, flushes out her character and shows her as a real character instead of a prop in the background, only there to show the audience how Jo is expected to act. Amy was often pushed down to hold Jo up, and seeing all the women - but especially Amy - as whole people in this new movie has me falling in love with a new side of an already beautiful story.
P.S I loved your video it was amazing!
Rachel Peat i completely agree and absolutely loved her internal struggle with Laurie. it shows a different side to her feeling a deep responsibility to marry wealthy for her family and her need for wealth comes from love and feeling burdened
Yes! I actually liked the subtle foreshadowing of Amy and Laurie ending up together by having a bit of a pregnant pause in the scene where they first meet. And the film kept expanding on their relationship instead of it being a total and complete surprise in the end.
I've been calling 2019: "Amy's revenge" or "Amy upgrade" & Florence Pugh carries it off so well!
Agree, wrote a similar comment in a different thread.
I think the 2019 version shows that Amy and Jo are in fact, quite similar. It devotes a fair amount of time to showing both their creative ambitions, they both recognise the economic elements of marriage, and their dreams are more similar than those of Meg. Jo and Amy share a desire for “freedom”, Jo moves to New York and Amy visits Paris. While they are different in thought process, they are similar in ambition and spirit.
I want the unreasonable length version of this please.
Yes the one that includes all the tv adaptations, plays and the musical 😂
Ya I want the 1995 Pride and Prejudice equivalent
Can you possibly do a part 2?
@@neptoon928 I just did my yearly binge of that mini series the other day 😂😂🙌 I just rewatched Greta's Little Women so I came to rewatch this video too lol
Jaded Wonderland omg hahaha I do that too or whenever I’m just feeling down, I can never get enough of it , I don’t care if it’s 6 hours long 😂
Still cannot get over how the 2019 cast was so much like a group of sisters.
We have the same dp ahaha
Me and my two sisters kept looking at each other in the theater and saying “OH MY GOSH, THATS US!!”
They actually made the cast hang out together a lot to bond, so they’d be friends and could joke around on set
And I loved the way they wrestled and fought! You could imagine them biting and pulling each other's hair out!
I really liked the 1994 one with that too
I’ve only seen the 2019 version but I liked the flashback structure since it really highlights Joe’s nostalgia and present-day loneliness, and the way she feels like she is losing that childhood happiness from her memories.
Ellie Smelly you need to watch the 90s version!
I agree! The flashbacks were bright and vibrant, while the present time was shown to be dull and lonely.
I agree, I thought that was brilliantly done.
Very millennial
I thought the flashbacks were sloppy and difficult to keep up with.
There's a coziness to the 1994 version that I really, really love and I thought Winona Ryder and Claire Danes's performances where excellent. It's my favorite adaptation and I love watching it during the Christmas holidays.
Emgee78 YESSSSS
A
I agree with you the 1994 version is the best.
I also agree with you! The 1994 warms my heart in such ways
Emgee78 my favorite too
Yep, me toooo! Love it. To me, Wynona will always be Jo . ❤️ Love that version just amazing actors!
Winona Ryder brought something special to the character of Joe for me and will always be my favourite. Even in a cultural context Winona rarely played the pretty girl on screen, she was more the social misfit, the 'strange and unusual'. So her casting and performance flowed naturally. She and Christian Bale had the best chemistry as well, he was not so pained as Timothee was - more full of laughter than lingering looks.
I always saw her as the American Helena bonham Carter if her mental health had not got in the way I think she would have outdone Helena
Yes. Same feels.
idk i thought the bale laurie was really creepy toward jo. in the proposal scene she literally says “no” several times and he forces himself on her anyway-seemed really out of character to me.
great Beetlejuice reference!
I love Winona, but that version is my least favorite. It is true how different things appeal to people for different reasons. How astounded Louisa would be today with the perpetual life of her story !
I feel like the 2019 version got the relationships between sisters better, especially the physically violent side. I came out of that with my sister really seeing our own relationship in them.
I feel like that's just Greta's thing. You come out of her movies thinking "Jeeez those people felt so real". I personally feel like she's writing my life... even when the events aren't the same as tho I've lived but just... it's so personal and real that it feels like I know the characters or i'm one of them. I don't know if it makes any sense. To me, You have either experienced these kind of stories or feelings just writes about IRL and can relate or you haven't.
I saw this with a good friend who had 6 sisters and 1 brother. This is exactly the point she made after we saw it.
The tensions between Jo and Amy were very realistic in Gerwig’s film. I don’t have a sister, just brothers, but the mean-spirited act of Amy burning her manuscript rang true. IMHO. Jo was not kind to Amy, stole her spotlight, etc. I enjoyed the development of all the characters but especially these two.
I feel it portrays more than just sisterly bonds and relationships, I believe Greta wrote this adaption in a way, where any kind sibling relationship (male, female or genderless as a whole) can relate to the March sisters, and I find it quite beautiful because of that. Because as a man and also having a brother, I could put my thoughts, feelings and emotions, and also mu relationship with my brother into the March sisters' relationships. I felt so emotionally connected to the March Sisters', as did my brother when we saw it together. We couldn't help but lean on each other as we cried and felt our feelings and experiences being spoken and felt through the sisters on screen. Truly an amazing film.
@@rf_8064 that's wonderful! :D
To me it seemed like in the 2019 version, Jo and Laurie’s relationship was more obviously platonic. While it was very playful in the 1994 version, I still felt a lot more love and affection between the characters. Maybe that’s just me though.
totally, they were running around, goofing with each other (the ball?), i felt like you it was more platonic, that's why i liked jo with bhaer and laurie with amy
@ OMG I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST ME
@ I feel like the book itself is preachy and corny so they hit the nail on the head imo
Christian bale and Winona has amazing chemistry. I want them to end up together every time I watch.
What are they preaching?
The 1994 adaptation will always be my favorite simply because of Beth's death scene. I'm not exactly sure why but it's the only one out of all of them that really got to me. I sobbed the first time I saw it and I still sob everytime I watch it. Claire Danes is the best Beth
Same here.
Agreed. Haven't seen the film for a while and Beth's death is still etched into my brain. Also, Christian Bale's performance was incredible.
Her death was so beautifully written and directed. You could really feel the loss.
Absolutely agree! Only one Little Women movie 1994 version.
Same! I still vividly remember this scene and I haven't watched it since I was a child (though I really need to haha). Just goes to show how impactful that scene really was
I loved that Greta breathed new life into Amy's character. Florence Pugh was so good!
Michelle Foucault She was great in this movie.
I liked her as adult Amy, but the low voice & older look made her unbelievable as child Amy.
She was highlighted so well in this
I just watched it last night. That scene when Amy explained why she intended to marry a wealthy man and about the plight of women in society was just amazing. I got chills all over. Her delivery was spot on. Cold and calculating with just a hint emotion, but she wasn't angry at the world. She was simply making it clear that that was the hand she was dealt as a woman and she was going to play it well. Brilliant performance by Florence Pugh. I can't wait to see what she does next. She was so captivating in this film!
@@AZmom60 for me the low voice wasn't an issue because I'm 14 and I have just as low of a voice as her if not lower haha
Back in '94 I did a 'good deed' and took my nieces to see "Little Women." I was shocked that i was drawn into the story of the March sisters. It's a surprise i've never forgotten.
Today i bribed my granddaughters [age 16/18] with 'Skywalker' tix to attend with me. Near the end, both whispered to me thru tears that they were finally gonna read the novel i'd gifted them years ago.
So I get home and wonder about the differences in the four versions; and i find this video essay! Insightful, humorous, great writing, narration and editing. What gift for us!
Many thanks and have wonderful holiday...
I teared up while reading this... Well done for introducing them to this wonderful, timeless story ♥️
This is a wonderful story. Thank you for sharing.
@@anastapatsak me too!
This is beautiful and made me smile, thank you.
This is such a beautiful story, thank you for sharing this and for being such a great grandparent. Sharing moments like this with family members is so important and I am genuinely so moved by this. Xxx
I don't agree with your conclusion that we have to change a story to make it more relevant to our times. Classics exist because there's always something relevant to every generation no matter how the world has changed. Even if Jo doesn't get her perfect ending or becomes completely independent, the fight to do so means more than the ending she gets. People read books written hundreds of years ago because there's always something we can learn and something we can empathize with. I'm not against creative liberty at all, but I don't like the idea that we HAVE to change something because 'the ethics of the time' it was written were different. We have seen many classic novels adapted and readapted over time...and yet people still gravitate to and enjoy the adaptations that are the true to the time period and book.
As someone once said "how can we learn from history and things from the past if we keep on changing it"
@@monicacarranco8525 Basically, it's the idea that, no matter the time period or culture, there's always something one can relate to.
I absolutely agree! Your point holds true for the same reasons Shakespeare is still relevant: these stories capture human experience and authenticity and reflect it back to us. To claim we must fundamentally change old stories/history to make them/it fit with “modern ethics” isn’t true, is harmful, and it’s kind of insulting to the intelligence of viewers. Creative liberties, diverse casting, and critical thinking about the storyline and message are so so important and shouldn’t be sacrificed, but they can 100% exist alongside staying true to a story. It kind of reminds me of actresses refusing to wear the undergarments that go with the period; it’s accurate to the story, your character, and the culture you’re portraying. If you have the fame/pull to change the costume design, why not make sure everyone’s undergarments actually fit so they aren’t painful? And if you really truly can’t stand them for some reason, don’t accept roles in period films.
@@sylvan44 A good example is Pride and Prejudice. It was one of the first 'rom coms' ever written, back in the Georgian era, and yet it still appeals to many modern readers today. There have been multiple adaptations and modern retellings, but in the end, people still love the original above all.
@@sj4iy absolutely!!
saoirse ronan is truly god’s gift. she’s so adorable and such a great actress. love her so much
mh22 I did too
Eww, no.
Saoirse Ronan had to be Jo March. The girl is simply the most exquisite actress!
It's intriguing seeing Ronan on talk shows. She selects ultra-modern designer creations and is very cosmopolitan. It's an intriguing dichotomy when her recent role has been a period character or shy and awkward.
but winona isn't? okay then. she's still way better and did a better performance in the 1994 version, also WINONA FOREVER
Gerwig's version is astonishingly good: heartening and real, painful and fun, with rich character development even for Amy. This was a nice analysis.
I just hated all the flash backs & forwards. So gimmicky. Totally unneccessary.
@@lindakirk2252 I thought it would hurt the film but I actually love how they did it.
Linda Kirk i was wondering if i was the only one who thought it was, i thought it was a little disjointed
@@kristencotty4439 I heard from friend today that she also got dizzy from the time-shifting. 😁
@@lindakirk2252 I guess they wanted to do something different because if they just play the film chronologically it would pretty much be just a carbon copy of the older versions.
The thing about 1994's version is the soundtracks accompanying each scenes so endearingly .... the costumes were looking authentic and something about the dynamic from the beginning to the end. I guess the flow of the screenplay. For example, when you feeling so upset, and then it flipped up to optimistic scenes out of nowhere. It just showcasing the complexity of the whole events which spanned over decades. The camera work are gorgeous as well, just my opinion
Justice for Amy was finally served! Just got home from the film and cannot stop thinking about how dreamy it was. I grew up loving the '94 version and it will always have a special place in my heart but this version really soared for me. I loved a more in depth look at the sisters other than Jo. I also thought Timothee Chalamet was an excellent Laurie. His chemistry with both Florence Pugh & Saorise Ronan was so lived in. I also really loved Laura Dern as Marmie. The scene with Saorise when they talk about anger left me breathless!
mollierose that scene with Marmie and Jo is my favourite in the movie. I rewatched ‘94 version so many times during my childhood and teens, but that was a scene where I got completely sold to this one. It was so real.
Yes! I loved and connected with Amy so much more in this one! And her falling in love and marrying Laurie didn’t seem so out of no where. Also did you notice how Amy turned Fred down before she found out Laurie left to make something of himself (unlike the ‘94 version)? I absolutely loved that!
Saw it this morning, love vex it!
mollierose agreed
My only issue with Amy in this new version is that she looked too old. She's supposed to be around 13 (??) at first but the actress is about 23. I did love how her connection to Laurie was established throughout the movie, though.
Unpopular opinion: I liked Bhaer. I thought he was Jo’s intellectual match, and he did believe in her writing. It’s been a long time since I read the book as a girl, but I remember him proposing to her as they walked with an umbrella. That seemed romantic in its own quiet way.
I liked Bhaer as well. I don't get why people don't see why he was great for Jo. I understand that Alcott was forced to marry Jo off, but I think once she accepted that it was inevitable she did her best to create a charachter that intellectually suited Jo. I don't think she would have short shifted Jo in any way.
Me too, the book gives you enough time to get over Laurie and move on, which is real life. Partners that can respect and challenge each other make for a great marriage. I haven’t seen the new one. The review makes it sound like they made him a boy toy, and if that is true, it is unfortunate.
Same. And I dislike the idea that, in order to be really strong and independent, a woman has to do everything completely on her own, or only with the help of other women. All people need other people. It's not only female people who have something valuable to offer. Many of us need other people in a romantic or sexual way, and many women benefit from the relationships we have with men who encourage and support us. There's nothing wrong with that, and that's what Bhaer does for Jo. It does a disservice to women everywhere to imply that wanting or needing that kind of emotional partnership and support is weak or wrong. I find their relationship beautiful, and I find a Jo who wants badly to be understood and loved romantically far more relatable than a Jo who needs no one and only cares about her career and her sisters. In the 1994 version, Jo is restless at home, both because she wants to see the world and become a writer *and* because she feels misunderstood and out of place. Even with her sisters, she's lonely, and it's Bhaer who changes that by seeing and understanding her better than anyone else ever did. He encourages her to write about her real life because he understands her. Needing to be seen and understood isn't weakness.
OMG thank you!! I thought I was the only one who liked them together.
Even as his own character, I found Bhaer to be much more charming than Laurie. Not that I didn’t love Laurie, but he was your typical “boy next door” who of course everyone instantly falls for. Bhaer just had this mystic and sophistication to him that was alluring.
I also loved how the relationship between Laurie and Amy developed because it felt real and how it showed that love is about bringing out the best in each other, just like Bhaer and Jo brought out the best in each other.
Personally, even if the author didn’t want Jo to marry at first, she did a great job depicting the love that developed between her and Bhaer as well as how time can have a way with making people fall in love with each other as seen with Amy and Laurie.
"Not empty now"
“a hot, young French man who 𝓕𝓤𝓤𝓤𝓤𝓤𝓤-"
Italian*
@@Dan-gi6tf Then later French with Louis Garrel's 2019 Bhaer.
This is the comment I was looking for. English is not my first language so I don't know what she means when she says that. Does she mean "f*u*k? Is not ovbius to me. Help, please.
@@cutehollygolightly yeah
@@emilian7052 oh, thanks!
I like Bhaer in the 1994 version. The idea of finding an intellectual equal as a partner has always been the most appealing to me.
Me too. And Gabriel was so freaking dreamy in that movie. Loved him ever since.
Me too. I swear I based my life on elements of that movie. Lol
Agreed.
salexo9 I agree I also liked this, but I was 23 in 1994 and now, I’ll confess, I really like the idea of a Jo free to learn about the world on her own. Not sure if it feels more modern or more mature to want to see women supported by men rather than just equal.... i would say refreshing. I choose not to see this adaptation as a detraction from the 1994 version.
But it's not like in the 2019 version they're not equals. He even tells her that he sees her talent (hence why he criticizes her work).
Little Women was the first novel given to me by my Irish Gran when I was 7. She wrote: "Remember, you aren't just a girl, you are Irish". I'm 74. I still have this book with its linen cover and beautifully drawn art panels. I try to read it once a year. I'll pass it down to my grand daughter when the time is right for her. And remind her "she's not just a girl...". Thank you so much for your review of this wonderful book and the movies made from it. Yes, of course, I'm Jo (in my mind) and proud of all I have accomplished. Happy New Year/Decade. Much happiness and success to you. Best, t
How beautiful! I'm 20 and am reading Little Women at this very moment. The novel is so splendid!
I read it at 7 by my own will , but how I would love to do that. I'm 16 so I have no grandkids or daughters to pass this onto, but if I do, I hope I remember to . Thank you for this beautiful snippet of your wonderful life.
I wonder if you've got the same edition that I have? There's a beautifully etched drawing on almost every page. Mine has a glossary of American expressions at the back - to help English readers understand American slang of the 1880's!
1994 my favorite!! Wynona, Susan Sarandon, and Claire Daines are legendary. Love, love that version!!! The scene where Beth dies gets me every time!!! Anyway, a marvelous version!! ❤️
Yeah, don't forget Kirsten Dunst and Christian Bale! Legendary .
1994 is my favorite adaptation; however, it struck me at the time how "healthy" Claire Danes's Beth appeared, even toward the end.
the cast was incredible
The winddddd when she goes! So sad! And i loved the soundtrack
My personal favorite is the one from 49. I will be seeing the latest adaptation today, because if there can be 17 million James Bond movies, why can't there be the another little women.
The "17 million James Bond movies" are all DIFFERENT, though. Cassie, if you're gonna discuss something like that, please educate yourself on the differences first.
Yes, I liked Beth from the 1949 version - her death really moved me. I wonder how the latest film will deal with that.
@@christopherbrown2706 mmhm english man on prowl, who is he gonna fuck and which poor country is he gonna cause property damage in this time 😍😍
Cause with Bond, it's another adventure with different characters, a different story.
@@oof-wi7hp Yep, Bond will get the girl and have free consequence sex. Good for him.
I like that theres an adaption for each generation. I watched 2019s version and let me tell ya, your girl's emotions were all over the place.
Aww i was sobbing the entire second half
KT mcgoogle sameeeee
@@ktmcgoogle7927 Spoiler alert: I was sobbing several times at Jo's storyline, like when Amy burned her manuscripts, or obviously when Beth died, or after Jo's monologue in attic about how women are fit for other things than love, or when she realized (or perhaps thought) she loved Laury and then he showed up telling her that he had secretly married her sister. Jo's also THE girl that I identify with, since I am into storytelling/writing myself and also have similar attitude about romantic relationships and how a woman can do on her own but yet I still feel that kind of loneliness.
I also know the movie's based on a 1860's novel but I was still kinda disappointed that Jo was the only girl to actually live her artistic dream (we get an actress, a writer, a painter and a pianist and only one of them makes her dreams come true).
Saaaaame
ME!
While I really enjoyed the 2019 version of the film, I do agree that it is more suited for people who are already familiar with the novel and other adaptations. I took my niece to watch the film, and she was frankly lost at points. The new version has almost a frenetic energy to it, and the back and forth between timelines doesn't necessarily allow the viewer to live with the characters and watch them grow and change. As a result, the natural highs and lows of the story is slightly lost. In comparison, the 1994 version is more accessible to a first-time viewer. The cast is just as great, and the audience is able to take the emotional journey with the characters. It makes me cry every time. For me, this would be the version I would recommend first. The 2019 version is great too, but I wish it was told in a more linear fashion. Or, it switched timelines less. The main thing the 2019 version did better was explore Amy's character more. On the flip side, I loved Claire Danes portrayal of Beth more. Anyways, both movies are wonderful. It just comes down to personal preference.
Or, if they’d been historically accurate with the costumes, it would have immediately shown if something was a flashback or not. You can’t mistake 1860s crinolines with 1870s bustles.
And it would have assisted in the character development, given how much more adult bustle styles look (particularly helpful when it comes to Amy). I’m honestly still peeved that Durant won the Oscar for best costumes- they were atrocious! Took me out of the story completely. Can people just stop hiring her for historical movies? Because she did the same (if not worse) to Anna Karenina and Pride & Prejudice.
What do Hollywood costumers have against historical fashion anyway? They obviously hate it, and then they give their actresses shitty, cheap, inaccurate corsets, so the actresses can go on speaking tours about how these actually very comfortable and practical undergarments are patriarchal torture devices!
(This may be a particular soapbox of mine).
anyway, the costuming was abysmal, imo. It actively made the movie harder to understand.
I went with a friend who didn't know the novel and she was also completely lost. Another aspect of the film I disliked was the woke speeches. It was so didactic and heavy handed. I particularly cringed when Marmee told the lone black woman in the film (who appeared in one scene and didn't even get a name) that she was ashamed of her country. A deconstruction of the book is a great idea but the ham-fisted way this was executed left me cold.
never read the book or watched a single adaptation before watching the 2019 version and I was not confused at all lol, maybe more attention needed to be paid
@@AlisaRivera_aka_Li I was afraid it would shove woke discourse down out throats the way many films and tv series do nowadays. Thanks for confirming this, I'm not sure I want to watch now. I love the 1994 version. About the latest adaptation being "more suited for people who are already familiar with the novel and other adaptations", I observed the same thing with the most recent adaptation of Jane Eyre.
I've read the book multiple times and seen all the film versions mentioned here, and I was still lost at some points in the 2019 version. My daughter, however, who is much less familiar with any of them, was not, and liked this version herself. Myself, I prefer the 1933 version because I love Katherine Hepburn as Jo. They really used her New England background and her ambiguous sexuality to advantage in the role.
Best Jo storyline = Winona Ryder's
Best Amy storyline = Florence Pugh's
ABSOLUTELY!
Best Louisa May Alcott = Saoirse Ronan
Totally agree!!!!
HOT TAKE:
Best Jo= Winona Ryder (Saoirse was close though she was phenomenal)
Best Amy= Florence Pugh's
Best Meg= Emma Watson
Best Beth = CLAIR DANES
Best Laurie= Christian Bale(Timothee again was tied tho)
Best Marmie= Susan Sarandon
Best Aunt March = Meryl Streep
Claire Danes' Beth broke my heart.
Saaaame!
She did a great job as Beth
Mine too! Every time I watch the movie and it gets to the part where she dies, I sob!!!
americana607 yes, i cried so hard on that death scene 😭😭😭
Yes, Claire Danes was the best Beth. Although I watched the last episode of the Maya Hawke version last night, and while I didn't much like it overall, I did like the way it showed Beth, as more of an adult woman who took responsibility for herself. She went to the doctor on her own, knew she was dying, kept it from the family to spare them. Not just a tragic angelic child.
You hit the nail on the head when you described the '94 version as "Theater-kid Jo", and I think that was what I loved so much about that version of Jo; she wasn't conventional feminine as her sisters and women of the time were, but she wasn't as "full-blown tom boy" as the other film versions were (and I would include the 2019 version in that too). I think for many writers, an "unconventional woman" = tom boy, but there are many out there who identify as "unconventional" but who would also say "no, I'm not into physical activity or sports, it's much more intellectual or artistic" and so that portrayal of Jo who loves to cosplay in the attic and write the 19th century version of fanfic is very appealing. Basically, the '94 Jo is the one you would find on Tumblr today, sharing her creations and getting into fandom arguments that eventually turn into political/feminist ones
I don’t think the reason Jo is depicted as a tomboy in so many adaptations is because of the writers’ inability to write unconventional women that aren’t tomboys, but because Jo is written as a tomboy by Alcott. There are multiple mentions of Jo enjoying hockey and other sports, she longs to join the boys and talk and act like them more than once, etc.
I appreciate the ‘94 adaptation for its creative approach to Jo’s character, and I agree that there should be more variety in representing “unfeminine” characters, but I don’t think the other depictions are necessarily bad either, they’re just loyal to the source material.
The 1994 version is my favorite of all time. The soundtrack sends shivers down your spine. The connection you make with the characters is incredible. It gives me hope. The film warms heart.
I love the 1949 and 1994 versions the best, the 1994 version being my absolute favorite. The story, to me, isn't just about not needing a man but Jo's realization that she's growing up, everyone will go on to do their own thing, that family feeling and the free feeling of childhood will go away, facing the fact that we all have to grow up, move on and go our separate ways. It's not a good feeling, it's one that most of us can relate to in one way or another.
Moments that made me cry in the 2019 version:
-Mr Laurence giving the piano to Beth, and their conversation after that.
-Jo's speech about loneliness (damn that hit close to home)
-Jo seeing her novel carefully crafted and published
My grandma's favorite movie ever was the 1949 version of Little Women. She just passed away, her funeral is later today. I remember how much she loved that version and I'm missing her a lot.
I’m do very sorry - I’m sure she was very loved and will live with you in spirit forever ❤️
Kristy Hefner I am sorry for your loss and wish you have a lot of loving support around you in your grief. Your grandma sounds like an awesome lady.
I am sorry for your loss, Kristy.
My condolences. Wishing you strength & comfort during this difficult time. The 1949 was indeed the best version.
I'm so sorry for your loss. I miss my grandma, too.
What the 2019 Little Women taught me
1. I’ve become much more sentimental and I cry at movies much more easily as I’ve gotten older
2. “Life is too short to be angry with one’s sisters”
The only scene in 2019 worth kleenex was when Mr. Marsh came home from war.
I disagree. But I missed Beth’s famous heartbreaking line
I understand what you mean with statement 1.
As Johnny Depp once said, "Winona Forever" That is all.
exactly!
Poor man got beat by that harpie that shat on their bed...
I felt that the 33' and 49' Little Women had actresses who were too old for the younger roles. My all time favorite Little Women...the 1994 version.
The new version was way too hyper for me. Emotionally it never touched me like the 1994 version.
This will always be my favorite as well! It's timeless!
The costuming and makeup in the earlier versions was very poor.
Patt Seitas ya but the costumes in this one were wrong too
Except for Margaret O'Brian, she was 11 when she played Beth and Elizabeth Taylor wasn't too far off but yeah 1994 is the best
I just saw the most recent version. I liked the character development of Amy, but although Florance Pugh acted the role well she was too old to play a 12 year old.
I also thought this was a huge problem in the flashbacks. For people unfamiliar with the text (like my husband) it was jarring and confusing at points.
Jana Monji yeah definitely. I took my sister to it and she had never read or watched the old one and she was confused at times
Flashbacks did not work - I was left confused
I had never read the book nor seen any of the other movies. I had no problem following the Gerwig version
I never read the book and thought she was 16/17
While I do love the 1994 version (and believe me, I do), the 2019 adaptation has raised the bar to the next level. The writing, the ACTING!! The scenes with Jo and her publisher seemed to reflect true struggles and triumphs of Louisa May Alcott’s life. Saoirse Ronan was BRILLIANT!!!
I agree, the 2019 version was amazingly well-written, brought a lot to the story, and had some excellent casting, but it also was lacking in some areas where 1994 shone - for example, the immense affection and playfulness plus the overall development of Jo and Laurie's relationship, the score, and Beth.
@@Eva-bd2rm really? I thought the sisters and Laurie were a bit exaggerated in their playfulness if anything. And Beth's selflessness and Amy's inner growth along with Jo's loneliness (or childhood nostalgia in general) were the aspects that really stood out to me.
The 2019 movie is the objective better movie , it is not the better novel adaptation though . The movie is not about little women but just grown women . The 94 one was about girls not adults .
I respectfully disagree. To me, the 2019 version felt the least genuine in comparison to the 1994 version. It also disturbed me that they chose to not have two actresses for Amy bc it was too weird to see a grown adult act like a child. They also didn't develop Laurie and Jo's relationship enough or Jo and Baer's. Or Jo and Beth's. In the 1994 version I could very much feel Jo's loss of Beth but in this one I couldn't. I was still sad just not the same way I was in the 1994 version. It's probably to do with the nostalgia to some extent but I really do prefer the 1994 version.
@@Emilia-wv1kj i agree i didn't like the 2019 one at all. it was impossible to relate to and care about the characters. the jumping timeline didn't help at all, and when Beth died i hardly cared. there was no proper development of any of the characters
Omg!! You should do one with Anne of green gables Vs Anne with an E!!
I swear anne of green gable the proposal scene in the second movie is literally the same as jo and Laurie
Megan Follows forever.
Jessica Smith amen and I love that her Anne was always making mistakes and was shown as a flawed three-D character.
Yes Anne with an E is a brand new take expanding the world and characters and exploring storylines that are relevant to Anne and our time. It's beautiful and we'll done but different, a new and insightful take.
@Katherine TerBerg Yeah it would there all very different takes. And clearly reflective of the times in which they came out.
My thought, in having read the novel a couple of times as a child and recently again as an adult, is that Louisa May Alcott probably didn't feel romantic love for men, and so her Jo genuinely thinks she won't ever marry and genuinely is baffled by her qualitatively different love for Laurie. And so if one with that persona is forced to write a heroine who marries, it makes sense that it would be to a male who is older (i.e., less sex driven) and intellectual. That was probably the most "natural" hetero relationship Ms Alcott could imagine for Jo. Because that romance in the novel was contrived, any version of it is going to be like trying to put a square peg in a round hole. It was never natural to begin with (because it wasn't organic to the author's vision) so it's sort of never going to feel completely "right," I think. That being said, what's interesting to me is that, though I'm saying this, I related very much to Jo as a heterosexual, tomboyish woman, and even to her romance with Professor Baer because what makes me feel intimately connected with a man I'm attracted to is being SEEN as the person I am. So to me, the 1990's version does the best job of this. Baer is sufficiently physically attractive for the romance to be believable; he is intellectual (always attractive to thinking women); and he sees and admires and supports Jo for the person she is. Plus, I've always been attracted to compassionate introverts who are driven intellectually ;)
Louisa May Alcott was attracted to men. As a teen she was infatuated with Ralph Waldo Emerson & would serenade him & write (but not send) love letters to him & secretly leave flowers for him. Also, Jo was obsessed with writing cheesy romances. I wonder if her preference to not have Jo marry could have to do with how Louisa was single, most likely because Louisa's dad failed at providing for them & led them through a lot of instability, which caused her to become obsessed with making money to support her family. She tried to be the rock of stability for her family.
@@sarahd1706 Would marrying not provide her that stability too though? And I'm pretty sure there's something flying around there from L.M. Alcott about how she fell in love with many pretty girls throughout her life and that she felt she had a mans soul lol. A lot of gay women like boys/men when they are young girls and teens. Doesn't mean they can't eventually realise they're not actually into men, they were just expected to be into them and it felt natural at the time. Trust me, when I think of some of the men I was attracted to in my teens I shudder. Could be the same for her. But who knows
The 1994 version made the Jo/Baer romance believable because it stresses that Jo's background is that of a nonconformist family who believed in Emersonian ethics of equality, fair play and being the best one could be. Baer also comes from a similar background of the German philosophy that inspired Emerson in the first place. They are intellectually and ideologically well-matched.
In my in-no-way-a-scholar about the movie and book opinion, I saw Jo as being in love based on intellect.
Winona was good. June Allison was surprisingly one if the nicest versions. The most recent version, the actress portrayed Jo in a way that was much too modern and bold for the time.
I love the 1994 version so much. Winona, Claire and Kirsten are great! I like Jo and Friedrich's relationship especially in the 1994 version.
This is not only a phenomenal video in its own right, but also the best and most insightful review of Gerwig's adaptation I've come across. I think you are one of the few reviewers familiar enough with the source material and the author to appreciate what she was going for. I never liked the story myself, but your video has made me want to check out the new movie.
MariaVosa I wasn’t familiar with Little Women until I saw Gerwig’s film. It’s almost perfect. Absolutely amazing and I recommend that anyone watch it.
@@pjgs4933 same!!! I found it gorgeous and very AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA i love...
How no hasnt thought of Rebecca Of Sunnybrook Farm as a tv show
It's not mentioned in the video - time! and fair enough - but to me Laura Dern's Marmee is a huge part of why this film works. If one reads past the sugar in the book, Mrs. March is tough as hell, while being completely lovable. I love Dern in the part!
I haven’t seen the 2019 version
Professor Bhaer wasn´t an afterthought. Louisa had crushes on her philosopher friends Henry-David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emmerson and Fritz has elements from both of them. During the american civil war she also took care of an American-German soldier who had a striking resemblance to Friedrich´s character. Louisa also spoke German and visited Germany a couple of times. Little Women is highly influenced by German literature. In the 19th century, Fritz was a funny match because there was lots of discrimination towards German immigrants.
I've read two biographies of Alcott and I agree with you about the Thoreau - Emerson and German cultural influences. However, it is also true that the publishers and her young, mostly female readers did, indeed, put a great deal of pressure for her to write Jo into marriage, something she really did not want to do, but she had her whole family depending on her financially at that point. Given that, I see Jo's marriage to the professor as symbolic code for making a commitment to a life of art and writing.
@@poohbearwhitty oh, wouldn't it have been cool if Bhaer had been female in this version?! Now that would have been a shake up.
@@lilyt5855 OMG yes!!
Susan P - no.
Justin Samuels - no.
Beth's death hurts a lot more in the 2019 version because the parallels between the past and the present gave it more emotional impact, emphasizing on the symbolism how Beth's life is over and so is their childhood.
yes! I don't remember bawling at Amy's death in the 1994 one tbh
The 1994 is the best ..just love it. And such a great musical score. So beautifully shot and acted. Gillian Anderson did a great job
Speaking as a male that have great emotional investment in those characters in the 94' version as this new one, Laurie rejecting continue to be as painful as the new one, and trying to make the professor more handsome continue to be as stupid decision then as it is now.
*Armstrong.
I fully agree, though :)
Nothing compares to the 1994 masterpiece. My favorite score of Thomas Newman who brought life, warmth and epic emotion. The sets, camera angles, lighting, costumes, script, acting, editing flowed beautifully. It felt like I was there in the 1800s. Every actor in that film were beyond excellent.
AND the music. Thomas Newman's lovely score - like a New England Aaron Copland.
Still prefer Katharine Hepburn version I think it’s the best version
I really like the 1994 version but the 1933 one still is my favourite
I loved the 2019 structure and how it flipped back and forth between the timelines as the golden glow of the past made it seem nostalgic and special which further emphasised Jo’s loneliness and desperation
i absolutely agree, i just wish that the costuming had been historically accurate (as well as accurate to the actual characters) to both define the flashbacks and set the cultural tone. there was so much missed opportunity there, especially for a film that could absolutely have afforded accuracy and staying true to the characters in that way
I found it dizzying and bassackwards.
oh god no, i felt like its achronology was sooo hard to keep track
Winona Ryder as Jo and Claire Daines with her hunting performance ( that death scene always brings me to tears.)will have my heart forever. You did such an amazing job at dissecting all these movies I can only imagine how much time this took. Thanks so much and for that I will check out the newest even though I seriously doubt that it will live up to my favorite.
I adore the 1994 version, so was almost nervous going into the 2019. How wrong I was to be! It was a marvel and a unique telling.
But.... Pretty sure Batman will always be my Teddy
Melissa Locke I'm 100% the same. I thoroughly enjoyed the 2019 adaptation, but the 1994 adaptation is just it for me
Yours is the first comment that has made me actually want to watch it!
@@ceciliabrowndog7412 😍😍😍😍😍🤗🤗🤗🤗
😂😂😂 I agree, he is absolutely gorgeous in the the film!
YES
MY OPINION:
best jo: tied with saoirse & winona (i love them both too much too pick)
best young amy: KIRSTEN DUNST 1994 i loved her as young amy so much
best old amy: florence pugh 2019
best beth: claire danes 1994
best meg: trini alvarado 1994 (didn’t like emma watson for this role)
best laurie: christian bale 1994 (i LOVE timothee but i don’t think he was right for this role, so talented tho)
best marmie: susan sarandon 1994 hands DOWN
my personal favorite adaptation is 1994 because it just pulls on my heart strings so so much, and i think that the sister relationships are better developed. 2019 is good too but i just have a special place in my heart for 1994. also 1994 had a wayyyyy better soundtrack.
I mean, having Winona Ryder, Claire Danes, Susan Sarandon, Christian Bale and a newcomer such as Kirsten Dust (it was her breakthrough year with also Interview With The Vampire), that was a recipe for a masterpiece.
I had to look up the name of Trini Alvarado, because in my head she is simply Meg. I would love to hear more discussion of Meg in various versions.
Christian Bale and Winona Ryder made an entire generation burn passionately for their relationship!
2019 Marmie: I keep imagining her running from a dinosaur. Haha Jurassic Park.
Agree with everything. Older Amy is the main character I found lacking in 1994 version, if she had been a little like the newer version the 1994 film would be flawless to me. Also, Gabriel Macht was great, even though looking back the age gap is quite daunting, it's accurate to the time period and the novel
Laurie tho. In every film.
Jaime LaRousse yesssssss
*sigh*
2019 version saved amy’s character and they hv beautiful cinematography but i hate how inaccurate their costume is. That, that is the biggest problem lol
J w17e That’s hollywood (and indeed society) these days: appropriate over accurate. They want to change history to make it more politically correct.
@@myytchanneldinakoha8498 LOL you must have no idea what political correctness actually is because the costume changes had NOTHING to do with being PoLiTiCaLLy cOrReCt.
The costumes could have easily been the best ones with availability of the internet. It's so embarrassing
Myytchanneldinako Ha what does PC have to do with it? The fact is, the young times were set in the 1860s, and the adult times in the 1870s. Where the fashion was so obviously different, and actually would have made the story much clearer when it comes to how much time has passed. And the more adult look of the bustle era would have actually helped in the character development of Amy, particularly as they’re using the same actress.
Plus, even the 1860s stuff was just plain inaccurate - no bonnets, looked like they weren’t wearing corsets at times, hair done wrong, wrong materials and on and on.
But the costumes being awful (I have no idea how they won the Oscar for them) has nothing to do with being PC. I just greatly dislike the costumer- who also ruined the 2005 P&P as far as I’m concerned.
Naz Sherif Inaccurate costume design =\= bad costume design. You need to find another reason to explain why it's bad.
Maybe I’m partial as a 90’s kid but the 1994 version is almost magical and nobody can beat it
Same I still have not seen the 2019 version
Agree!
The 1994 version had a wonderful musical score. I’m sure that helped to make it almost magical.
@@lennysmom yes, the music is one of the best parts. I watch it every Christmas and the music def is perfect
I’ve watched all versions of LW and I agree; the 1994 version is the most perfect version.
I appreciate the adaptations for bringing attention to the "now", but I still love the 1994 version. The relationships between the sister and between Jo and Laurie had more depth.
The first one with Katharine Hepburn was the one most close's to the book,. Ms Hepburn refused to do the movie unless it fallowed the book.
I personally cried when she says to him "your not empty handed"
Trust us, you could make an hour video... we would watch the whole thing!
Dustin 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼hear! Hear! 😁
Yep, I could’ve done with a lot more of this.
Not everyone would, so therefore you shouldn't be trusted. This version of Little Women brought Nothing new.
Hepburn is iconic but everyone is just way too old in the 1933 version.
Ohhh my yes
Yea, like Norma Shearer playing a 14 year old in Marie Antoinette at almost 40 lol.
she's far too old for the role, and also the most overrated actress ever imo.
Yes
They were the same ages or younger than the other actors in the other movies? Florence Pugh, for example was about 2 years older playing Amy than Joan Bennett.
the 2019 version in terms of casting made Amy look way to old in the scenes where she was supposed to be younger, but the acting made up for it because at times she was painfully childish. after watching the 2019 version i actually forgot that Amy was supposed to be the youngest
*CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS!*
Ill be astonishingggggggg
By the way, that was NEVER in the book! Because they wrote it for Katharine Hepburn in the '30s one, it just got passed along, like a lot of other "movie conventions" that aren't in the book.
@@ferociousgumby Wrong! It was in the book - with a quick google search, I found Meg telling Jo not to say it at the ball they were going to and it appeared in the book other times.
ferociousgumby have you read the books? It a pretty constant reference from jo in both Little women itself, and in its sequels little men and jo’s boys
That compilation video tho!
Joan Bennett and Elizabeth Taylor played mother and daughter in Father of the Bride and Father's Little Dividend. In the latter film there’s a scene where the whole family is trying to pick a name for the impending baby. Billie Burke as Taylor's mother in law suggests Laurie, a name she’d loved ever since she read Little Women. "You remember how dear he was"
This was an amazing video. It starts out like a scholarly dissertation but instead of just reading the difference of the Jo's, clips of each films are included to demonstrates how each Jo is different and also plays to the fact that each film is not only a reflection of the author but to the time period each film was produced. The committment to research actually articles written about each film shows that the creators of this video desire is to not only make an entertaining video of a beloved classic story but also an intellectual understanding why each film adaptation can be seen through modern interpretation.
please never stop yourself from making long videos. i would enjoy watching them either way! amazing work! going to become a patreon soon as you have become one of the best video essay-ist out there, rivaling even Lindsey Ellis (a deep personal favorite of mine)
Best addition of “Shoes” to a video EVER
I'm so glad I'm not the only one who got that! I did a rewind of my own to check.
Legit lol’ed and replayed about 5 times.
Sorry, what's the timeframe for that?
10:57 audio "Oh my god" when they are spending the dollar I thought it was a male voice teasing Valley Girl bourgeoisie? Where is the addition of "Shoes" timestamped info please?
Perfect! Lol!
Thank you for pointing out that jo saying, "but I'm so lonely!" isn't her talking about romantic love!!!!! Everyone seems to think that and I feel like that would defeat the point of Jo's character. She just misses her happy childhood where her whole family was there. Beautiful video!
And that’s what I dislike monumentally about the modern versions
Please make an analysis like this of Jane Eyre!!!!
My thoughts EXACTLY
Yesssssss
Omg yes it’s got so many different versions (for example, I despise the ending of the new one)
The best adaptation of it isn't a major motion picture, imo. The 2006 miniseries is the absolute tops!
@@LifeInAConcreteBox nooooo, the 83 miniseries is the best. Though the 97 movie is the most amusing. I always get a good laugh out of watching Ciaran Hinds just scream all of his lines.
edited to add: I take that back. I just remembered there's a bizarre black and white version where all of the conflict is gone, Jane calls Mr. Brocklehurst an "ugly old crocodile," and Adele falls into a flowerpot headfirst and gets stuck there. THAT is the most amusing Jane Eyre by far.
I am still waiting for a version which gives Professor Baer his due as a refugee from the German revolution of 1848 - inspired by the romantic and democratic ideals that fueled it. Surely that would have appealed to Jo with her sense of romance and adventure.
I got that feeling from the 90s version. It was one of the reasons that the match seemed to make more sense than any other version.
Is that in the book? All I remember was that he came to America to raise his sister's sons after she and her husband died in New York.
Wow, cool stuff. That's maybe material for a completely original screenplay (touching only tangentially on LW).
@@bentleyr00d -- not explicitly in the book, but I think it was written at a time when people were more familiar with German refugees. Certainly Professor Baer was an educated man who was familiar with art and music and opera and literature -- all of which carried independent and revolutionary ideas in Germany at the time. I would love to see this made more explicit in another movie version. I would also love to see the Boston-Brahmin class's anti-Irish and anti-Catholic prejudice, which is quite explicit in the book, acted out. Boston was full of Irish and German refugees at the time, and Marmee's social work involved understanding and mitigating their plight, but it is given no political or historic context in any of the movies.
I've seen the '33, '94, and 2019 versions; overall, the 2019 version is my favorite. It was the only one to make each sister a believable, fully realized human being; each sister had an intentional and necessary role in the overall story. All of the other versions of the story were kinda framed as "a story about Jo, her two sisters, and the third sister who dies". I loved how Gerwig emphasized each sister's unique idea of the exercise/function of womanhood in their society. The 2019 version also did the best job of framing the socioeconomic context and implications of the March sister's lives. The underlying current of the friction between the sisters made for enriched storytelling, and the use of flashback kept me engaged in a more immediate way.
Be sure and see 1949 as well !
I just saw the 2019 version last night. I wept. It was so good. And Florence Pugh is everything as Amy.
During the scenes of Beth's past illness / present death, I cried my heart out, more than I ever have before. During a quiet moment in the film I realized that the entire theater was sobbing. ... And yes, Florence Pugh is fantastic.
Gabriel Byrne was THE archetypal Professor Bhaer. Accept no substitutes!
yes!
I don't know why, but 2019 version is such a comfort movie for me...All flashback scenes with their childhood are perfection in the way they capture youth before returning us to the horrors and reality of the present. And the way Joe's love story intertwines with her negotiating her book deal and how we actually never know if she ended up with this dude or was she talking about the book ending is so heartwarming and also promising that we don't have to marry anybody to live a fullfilled life.
The 1994 version is my favorite... and the soundtrack by Thomas Newman is stunning!! The 2019 version part was filmed in my hometown
Thanks for mentioning the soundtrack! I remember loving it so much I bought the CD lol
@@monmothma3358 I only have to think of that film to hear the soundtrack in my head.
The 1994 adaptation has been a part of my life since I was 7 and it has become my go to Christmas film since I was 19!!! However, I'm going to be seeing the 2019 version tomorrow with my mother and am encouraging all my friends to go see it. I'm so happy to see this video from you and cannot thank you enough for this. A Merry Christmas to you and your loved ones ♥ ♥ ♥, thank you for all the videos you make and I cannot wait to see what's in store for 2020.
Swikar Subba how was it?
@@heresfrankbetches921 absolutely wonderful, I highly recommend watching it. It's been shot beautifully with the ensemble giving their all and you can tell how much they loved doing this film and how much love Greta Gerwig put into this film. In fact, I'm rewatching it again!
I loved two dialogues the most, the one that Amy is talking to Laurie why she wants to marry rich and how there is a difference between men and women and the part that Jo is talking to her mom confessing that she wants to marry laurie cause she is so lonely and how she is tired of people always thinking a girl should marry!
I will forever condemned the Hollywood Foreign press from snubbing Greta for her work in little women this year. It really does foreshadow the theme of the 2019 version of women having to be taken serious for their work
Malcolm 1097 who would she be nominated over? It was a tough category (not disagreeing with you just asking)
@@bruins94laurent85 exactly
HFA like to nominate the "cool" movies so they can hang out with established actors and directors. Probably the most corrupt movie awards.
@@bruins94laurent85 Literally everyone, except maybe Joon-ho. Her work was superior to everyone else's.
I don’t get Todd Phillips being nominated instead of her.
This comment is here to increase engagement and have more people discover your awesome channel!
The 1K-th thumb's up!
🌿🌷🌿😊🌿🌷🌿
This reply too!
Sambou Jaiteh how nice. Visit my channel😂😂. It’s so lonely there.
I'm mostly a purist when it comes to book to movie adaptations.
So the 2019 one isn't something I much enjoyed.
Seeing how each version sort of conforms to things that were happening at the time, does put some context into the writing, and so I can appreciate that I suppose.
Once again, a superb thought-provoking commentary on and comparison of a still beloved classic story. What can I say? If you aren't a tenured professor of film studies, you should be! Happy New Year!
Agree! These videos are superb.
christian bale was the perfect laurie
i love timothée so much but i found myself missing christian throughout the film
Timothee has nothing on Christian Bale. He's also way too skinny.
@@Hudpix16 I thought Timothee's acting was great, but as Laurie - no. Bad casting. Also, I did not like this most recent version.
Thanks to my love for Christian I watched the movie and now I’m into this story and these adaptations with all my heart
I loved Christian Bale as Laurie, but I think Timothee is more how I imagine him when I read the book. Yes he was a bit skinny/young looking, but I found this age appropriate (and the actor is actually 24), and his acting completely sold me.
Yes, I adored Bale's turn as Laurie.
I personally loved the 2019 version, and it was the adaptation that really pushed me to finally read the book. It's very much a product of this generation, and being rather young it really resonated with me. That being said, while I only saw the 1994 version as a child and barely remember it, as I read the book I can't picture the 2019 cast as these girls. The 1994 version feels so much more fitting for the tone and voice of the story, and from the brief clips of the earlier versions I think it is the strongest of all in recapturing the spirit of the novel.
It's impossible for me to be unbiased. I was eleven when I watched the 1994 version and I took it to heart. I grew up ambitious and focused and it made me feel OK about not prioritizing relationships or being merely decorative.
I'm 33, successful, and single. And I read my first edition Little Women every Christmas.
But I'm looking forward to watching this version.
As much as I love Jessica Lange, Winona Ryder should have won the Best Actress Oscar for Little Women in 1994.
And Katharine Hepburn should have won her first Oscar for Little Women instead of for Morning Glory.
Morning Glory was a FANTASTIC performance . How dare you! :P As was her Jo, but don't put down Morning Glory.
100%
For me, the best early Hepburn performance was in "Alice Adams." She broke my heart, even with the sappy ending the studio tacked onto it. It would've been far more powerful to have stuck to the book. My favorite "Little Women" films are 1933 and 1994.
Jessica lange should‘ve won for Frances but she won for supporting that year because they had to give the leading to sophies choice，so they owe Jessica a leading and Winona wasn’t strong enough to sweep that year, so.
@@lemorab1 Or "Bill of Divorcement" !
As a huge fan of Louisa May Alcott's work, I must say that, in essence, LW2019 is the closest to the actual novel. But I must also say that, in my point of view, Greta Gerwig made some mistakes in the adaptation of the novel.
1. I didn't like the pacing, which was too slow, and full of flashbacks. What this does to the story is that we don't get to see the progression of the characters' personal growth in a timeline.
2. There are many comments here saying, "I loved that Amy wasn't portrayed as a spoiled child...". The problem is that in the novel, Amy is actually a spoiled child, who progresses into a fine lady of society who makes some fundamental changes in the way she sees the world.
3. I'm a doctor, and rheumatic fever patients don't look as rosy and lively as the Beth played by Eliza Scanden. The makeup crew did not study how a chronic heart patient looks like, especially in the brink of death.
4. Comparing Beth's last moments in LW2019 to LW1994, I prefer the latter, since it carries a great deal of emotional charge. In LW2019, she simply dies, in LW1994, she states that, as quiet and seemingly soft-charactered as she was in life, she was getting ahead of her sisters by being the first to go into the afterlife. Claire Danes takes the crown in the same scene here.
5. Although Timothee Chalamet is a great actor, I felt that his Laurie was too forced, relatively unnatural, especially in the scene where he tries to propose to Jo. Compare it to the same scene in LW1994, with Laurie played by Christian Bale, who plays him wonderfully, with a painful sensibility on the moment he's rejected by Jo. I think the role of Laurie was not fit for Chalamet.
6. Though the casting (except for Chalamet as Laurie) was excellent, if we stick to the book, the physical description of the girls does not match the one in the novel. Each girl was meticulously described by Louisa May Alcott, because they were all based on her and her real-life sisters (Anna, Elizabeth and May). I give a nod to LW1994, for casting actresses who fitted Alcott's physical description of the girls, i.e. Jo's a brunette with gray-brown eyes, Meg's also a brunette, but with blue eyes, the same goes for Beth, and Amy had curly blond hair, and blue eyes. Florence Pugh was the only one who physically fitted the character she was playing. And, Frederick Bhaer should have been older, Louis Garrel seems too young to play him.
7. Sticking to Florence Pugh, the only scene I didn't like from her was when she arrives at the Laurence's house with the rule hitting wound on her palm. I think Kirsten Dunst did it better here in LW1994.
8. The development of Jo and Frederick's relationship is better developed and adapted in LW1994. In LW2019, they lack complete chemistry. The same goes for Meg and John's relationship's development. The only thing you get from them is when they are discussing their economic struggles. But before and after that, there's nothing.
9. Another criticism for hair and makeup: the only one wearing a hairstyle that was fashionable during the Victorian Era was Amy. The other ones' hairdos were too modern, especially Marmee's. Married women did not accustom to wear their hairs down, whether totally of partially.
10. Meg's inner struggle during the summer week at Annie Moffat's house isn't shown in LW2019. It wasn't well shown either in LW1994.
11. Though Beth is seen playing with her dolls in LW2019, it's also notorious in the novel that she owns at least 3 kittens, which are not seen anywhere in the most recent adaptation. LW 1994 shows her both playing with her dolls and her kittens. The cats in the March household are even a matter of conversation in the novel, as it's established when Jo first encounters Laurie at the Gardiners' New Year's Eve party.
12. LW2019's Bhaer is critical of Jo's writing, but I cannot find in this version a sympathetic character. On the other hand, in LW1994, Bhaer (played masterfully by Gabriel Byrne), shows more appreciation for Jo's writings, while being critical of her. And I think the difference is the performance by both actors. Bhaer is supposed to love Jo, and that is shown with Byrne, so he criticizes her in a strong but kind way. I don't see any love from Louis Garrel when he tells Jo that she should write something on the level of her talent. Like I said before, no chemistry whatsoever.
13. The Alexandre Desplat soundtrack is totally forgettable. I've had Thomas Newman's 1994 soundtrack in my mind since then and to me, it's synonymous with Little Women (as we speak, I'm trying to remember any tune from Desplat's soundtrack, and I can't, I simply can't).
So, even though LW2019, is closer to the novel, in context, it lacked a lot on the adaptation. In that sense, I prefer LW1994. It had a great casting, and a faster pace, without lacking substance.
I completely agree with most of your points, and while at first I felt the same about the 2019 portrayal of Jo's relationship with Bhaer, after watching this review it was interesting to hear about the reasoning behind making 2019 Bhaer more of an afterthought in order to give Jo's writing career more screen time, and at the end to show how her marriage to him was just a condition of the publisher's and not at all something Louisa May Alcott had intended to include. This gave me a whole new appreciation for the 2019 version. Ultimately, considering the alterations in 2019 to Amy and Bhaer, I have to say overall I think 1994 is the closest to the novel, but I'm so here for the LW2019 ending!
Agree with each word you wrote!
I think 94' is a proper adaptation while 2019 tries to be an adaptation, a homage to the writer and twists of modernity all at once. So while it shines in a few parts(particularly Saoirse Ronan as Jo), overall it comes off as a confused film.
I could not get over the fact that they actually wanted us to buy Florence Pugh as a 12 year old. She is damn good actress and I felt bad for her.
Also Timothy and Emma were a miscast. Timothy for sure, Emma I don't know might have been the lack of any direction for her character.
Are you kidding I havent seen the 94 version which is a blessing so I don't have nostalgia goggles I'm sure Wynonna rider and Christian bale were great but I couldn't see the screen half the time because my eyes were watering so much all of them have such good character arcs in the new movie and the Laurie in the new one when he confessed his love I was dieing they both were phenomenal and I could really feel everyone's emotions
@@minutemovies2766 When you have not seen the 94 version the how can you say which is better? Lol.
@@sarahsiddiqui6494 I didn't say it was better I said that looking at it without any other preference I loved everyone's performance when did I say it was better? 😂
I love the fact that in the 2019 version, they actually show how Jo getting married is an add-on. She has that conversation with the editor and it gets tacked on at the end.
Yes, Jo’s marriage is treated as an afterthought in the book as well. That’s why I think layering it with the “you have to marry off your heroine” speech is a smart choice.
I liked the 2019 version because it was set up differently, and I love that it hinted at the fact that Jo didn't end up with the professor - that that had to be written in for the publisher - but man, I did not feel anything that I normally feel when watching or reading Little Women. Starting with Jo in NYC already with the professor, and Beth already being really sick made it so when Beth died I didn't cry, and when Jo and Laurie didn't work out - I wasn't upset! It seemed without the actual story line taking place in the right order of events, I didn't have the normal attachment to the characters that I normally had - despite all of the great talent in the film. 1994 is still my favorite...
Yes, I liked it because I don't like romantic love.
But she did end up with him, I think he was there in the end when she opened her school
Honestly, the costuming in the 2019 adaptation (there were ugg boots in that movie) took me out of the story a lot. I really think the flashbacks would have worked better if the costuming didn't take too many liberties
The costuming and hair was beautiful but historically inaccurate, that's the only problem I had with that version
yeah, they weren't even creative choices they were just ???
I love the 1949 version: such beautiful, warm colors and a warm heart too, so christmassy. Otherwise, the latest BBC/PBS mini series was most satisfying and faithful to the original story, which needs time to unfold properly. So unless you can make a sprawling 4-hrs film like Gone With The Wind, a mini series seems more appropriate for a proper adaptation, and TV is also more intimate which fits the story well.
Didn't know about the PBS version, I will look for it. Thank you!
Although I grew up in the 90s, I did manage to catch the 49 version on tv before seeing the 94 LW and I did like June in the role-- but probably because I like Jo, period! However, you're right about how Christmassy it looks. Very pretty and cheerful
I know people like to say she was a lesbian but the original text and none of the adaptions (even the 94 and 2019 adaptions) give any hint of a sexual affection towards women. I think if anything Jo was asexual. It is clear that Laurie was her soulmate but that they were not meant to be married. Which I think would have been a good idea to explore in a future adaption or some form of an essay.
Anthony People interpret Jo this way because of knowledge of Alcott. Alcott based Jo on herself, and she herself never married and later wrote that she’d fallen in love with women before but never any men. So it’s not fans reading into the text so much as looking into how Jo matches up with Alcott herself and going from there.
it is not always about proof. it is about what you relate to and how you interpret it to serve your own reading. and i think that's just fine :)
As a straight woman who has no plans to ever marry or have children and is a proud spinster, I see a lot of myself in Jo.
I just watched the PBS bio again, and she DID have a close relationship with a young male student (German!). I don't think it was a conventional "romance", but she loved him. Her life didn't fit the mold in most ways. I'm not sure how that one ended.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone refer to Jo as a "lesbian", since, as you say, there's no hint of her having an intense female friendship/relationship. But I heard plenty of discussion that Jo is a queer icon, because she definitely gives off that vibe. But also, of course, since Alcott herself may have been same sex-attracted, there's also always been discussion of just how much of herself she put into Jo's character. I think you're right that Jo, as written, seems more asexual than anything. Which still fits with "queer icon", in my opinion!
2019
- Jo throws pillow at Meg
- Jo and Aunt March scene
- That day at the beach (their interaction with Laurie and his friends)
- Jo tells Laurie that she can't love him in a romantic way
- Jo asked Meg not to marry John
- The attic scene with Marmie
- Jo and Laurie having a heart to heart talk at the attic
- 'life is too short to be angry at one's sisters' scene
It surprised me even I already know the story. I cried harder in this version.
I wish people would read the other 2 books Little men and Jo’s boys. You see the growth of jo and her husband. Plus she becomes a mother to her own sons. The other sisters are seen plus their 2 daughters Meg’s and Amy’s. I LOVE the book and movies and feel there is always room for another version. But in the 2nd book you see why the Aunt leaves the house to Jo. She gives her the means to live on her own. To write but to have another way to make money in her limited society.
Yes, nobody reads anymore such short attention spans
@@bananasinpajamas9499 Booktube would disagree XD
Didn't Jo and Frederick open a school there? It's been a long time since I read these stories.
Eight cousins is my favorite.
It really is a trilogy - Little Women, Little Men, Joe’s Boys.
Amy was definitely the standout in 2019's Little Women. Florence Pugh's performance was the first time I really liked Amy.
I wish you had included the PBS 2017/2018 Miniseries, but I understand why you didn't. I feel like it bridges the gap between '94 and '19 and because of that, it doesn't come across as particularly unique. I loved it though and it had my favorite portrayals of Marmie, Mr. March, Laurie, John Brooke, and Professor Bhaer. It was also the only adaptation that I can remember that showed Aunt March meddling with Meg's engagement. I think the miniseries was the most accurate adaptation of the book, but it wasn't as flashy as some of the others. (Also, the miniseries' Amy wasn't the best.)
The 1978 telemovie version shows her (briefly) meddling with Meg's engagement. Then Jo tells her off, and Aunt March says, well then, I'm taking Amy instead of you to Europe.
Thank you! I was looking for a comment that mentioned the PBS series since it was recent as well.
@@Raven_Nivhaar it's weird how pretty much nobody is talking about it
I def understand and appreciate the metaness of Jo ending up with Bhaer in the 2019 film, but I'm also a hopeless romantic and ngl the whole "my hands are empty, I have nothing to offer you" line paired with Jo taking his hands and saying they aren't empty because they're holding her...yeah that got me I may have teared up a little