I think I still prefer the Greta Gerwig version. I completely agree with the principles and concepts you outlined. However, the medium of film gives us an additional variable: the actors themselves. The BBC version definitely acted BIGGER, but it's a bit over-acting, and the Gerwig version, being a little more grounded, is easier to watch because the acting is so great that it pulls me into the scene more. However, in a novel, you don't have actors; you have the imagination, so I completely agree this is the way to go for writing overall.
I definitely find the 1994 version with Winona Ryder as Jo to be the most emotionally engaging, aesthetically pleasing, and well casted of all the versions I've seen thus far. I rewatch it every year and the scene where Jo's book is burned and her reaction is far more visceral than both the options in this video. That said, I do also love the BBC version :)
Ronan and Pugh are just so good. And Scanlen as Beth. But Emily Watson (in the BBC version) always elevates a film. Both versions are both great. And though it was hard to think of Pugh that young because she has such a mature voice, she somehow pulls it off. Ronan and Pugh are just so darn good overall. By the way, I agree with your whole video though. :) The BBC version handles that scene better.
I absolutely love this! It also serves to show just how close sisters are, because she knew PRECISELY how to hurt her sister, there was no scheming, no contemplation, she went for the SOUL.
🌸 I’m sorry but I agree with video for writing First one was too flat & awfully boring whereas the second one captured my attention and moved me with the characters like I was there My mom had 8 sisters & they didn’t fight, neither physically or verbally I have zero sisters & 2 brothers and I am the fighter lol Life isn’t always like a firecracker but when you write it has to take the audience on a journey
A mix of the two would be great. The first one really feels like siblings fighting. Which often does go from 0 to 100 due to past resentment. The build up in the second one was great but the fight part seemed lack luster, she didn’t feel or act mad enough to me. Right after seeing her burnt paper it should’ve been one look in her sisters direction and then jumped her immediately like the first scene.
The 1994 version of the story also has a really cool juxtaposition of Jo's anger and Amy's regret, which I think is much more realistic and relatable. How often do we do something in anger only to regret it in the aftermath? It also helps that Kirsten Dunst was an actual child playing Amy.
agreed. having one actress play both younger and older amy does such a disservice to the story, this scene in particular. i literally cannot take the 2019 version seriously because florence pugh looks older than saoirse ronan to me
I have to agree. Furthermore, at the risk of putting myself in the crosshairs, I’ve only seen one version of Little Women, one time and it was the 1994 version with Winona Rider. It was years ago and to be honest, this kind of story is not my thing. I have to say that on a scale of more likely realism, burning a book that someone you love has been writing - when you know how much it will hurt them - should be in reaction to something more egregious than big sister telling little sister she can’t go out for the evening with her - even if she’s a jerk about it. This whole reaction seems off to me unless there is a deeper antagonistic dynamic going on between those two sisters that I’m not remembering in the story? And yes, some regret should have been present to make the scene more real…as most sisters who do have good relationships would be remorseful for taking such a drastic form of revenge. Cuz there definitely was no back up draft on a thumb drive or on the cloud 😂😂 That said, Abbie’s lesson was clearly played out in the writing and the performances. There is a big difference between the two versions emotional roller coaster-wise. My problem is with the concept and context of the scene and not with A.E.’s point. ☺️
Maybe it’s an unpopular opinion, but although the 2019 version isn’t as cinematic and dynamic from a narrative perspective, it kinda feels raw and ugly, like how siblings *would* fight. I’ve got an older and a younger sibling, and that scene felt pretty real for me. A lot of the time, the emotion is festering underneath and explodes in a matter of seconds. Maybe the direction could have been better to convey that, but idk something about that scene just hit for me.
Yes, yes! As a little sister, Amy was exactly me. I WANTED to feel dramatic and serious and vindictive. Amy very obviously is frustrated at being constantly dismissed by Jo, and does something that throwing a tantrum can't do. It's a lot more ugly, and even when the older sibling gets angry and the younger is forced to apologise, most times they feel little regret, that their actions were justified. The responsibility is on the eldest to forgive, and less for the younger to apologise, because the younger can't truly grasp the entirety of what they've done on a personal level. And that's just sibling life. Petty disagreements and forced apologies and cat fights and sometimes, learning and feeling very little. Gerwig captured that far more realistically than either this abc version or the 1990s version. Sometimes, sibling spats aren't as deep for one party than they are another. We don't need Amy showing a deep guilt, we don't big swelling scores or drawn out monologues or varied cuts. Because they're still sisters at the end of the day, and in the end they will all get on with life, just as the Marches do. *Also want to point out, in the scene before the confrontation between Jo and Amy, Jo is being specifically and purposefully spiteful to Amy, shutting her down cruelly and on purpose, to elicit further reaction from Amy, so she has more reason to shut her down, the cycle continues. Jo felt it was her right in that moment for Amy to be upset and angry and to miss out on an event she was going to, because that is what big sisters commonly feel like. Sometimes we want to spite our siblings, especially when we're in a crabby mood, or the sibling has already been annoying beforehand. Jo understood what Amy was feeling, but she didn't care that she was. When Jo asked Amy if she had the book and Amy started gloating in her lie, she knew and was furious. Sibling spats like this, there is nothing else to do but claw each other's eyes out.
@@melindawolfUS fair point. I do love dramaticized things, in fact my favorite genre in fantasy, where everything's at least a little unrealistic. I just really liked that scene I guess, and there's others who also enjoyed it. I wasn't trying to say that the point she makes in this video is wrong-- in fact I agree with her that emotional dynamics are important--I was just saying that there was something that ended up being effective for me, and I wanted to contribute to the discussion. Apologies if I came off as disagreeing or ignoring her points 😅
In the book, Amy and Jo squabble in other parts in a way that isn't so intense. The importance of this scene is that this fight went beyond normal sibling bickering. They actually hurt each other this time, and struggle with forgiveness.
As an actress and writer I can argue that the actors' choices impacted a lot of the emotional dynamic in both scenes. I think in the adaptation if some of the actors choices were different it could've changed the emotional dynamic massively even with the limited dialogue. Also the actors choices and the change in atmosphere in the BBC version is what gave it more emotion.
Directing also plays a role in the results here. Gerwig could've instructed the actors to crescendo and to have differing emotions, differing discoveries develop through their acting. That's part of a directors job, to help actors find the true character and emotion and release it.
@@beebuzz959 Honestly I think Gerwig’s priorities for the 2019 adaption were to elevate the realism of the novel (and thusly it’s quiet feminist themes). The rhythm of her story, despite being an achronological reworking of the narrative, flits back and forth through the chapters of these women’s adolescence as though we are merely sitting in the room with them. The sequence of scenes thusly begins as though we understand the context behind it and the thoughts going through the girls heads already. Pugh isn’t playing a woman who communicates herself and makes good choices, she’s playing a young Amy, and her emotions therefore move at a fast, realistic pace, and her motives for the scene come out messy and childish. Jo is no different in this regard. And as a sister myself, Ronan and Watson couldn’t possibly be more true to their role of older sisters, one scathing and uncompromising to her little sibling at all costs, and one nurturing and wise as she balances them both. It was like being seen when Jo just flung herself at Amy, because the audience doesn’t need to be coddled; They know Jo was silently winding up a shot from the moment she looked up from the drawer, even without raising her voice. The cuts still build tension and the angle of Gerwig’s vision prevails: That of authentic, messy, realistic sisters wrought with fiery agency and searing ties to one another. For example, watch the BBC version. While I’m a believer in theatre > film, this acting style, which is being utilized, does nothing to impart a sense of duplicity in the viewer. I get the impression that the actors are moving line to line, almost third circle, representing their characters emotions by directly communicating them with the audience and thusly doing just that: acting. I don’t see sisters, I see blocking and a script and players on a stage. They speak exposition, and they hand hold the audience through the emotional journey as if we didn’t ask to be here. And for that I think Gerwig’s concept for the framing of Little Women (2019) wins over and over again.
@@KekerikiGreen I saw Gerwig's version ( not the BBC one), and though I appreciate how she personalized it more to how Jo probably was, the film overall wasn't that great. I've seen much better versions that were much more emotional. Especially having studied directing, and having done some myself, I find Gerwig failed in assisting the actors to help the film be what it deserved to be. I think you can bring out the pro-feminist qualities and also create a moving picture. If you can't do that, you've failed at half of it. I find her version only mediocre in that regard. I didn't cry. I didn't really even care if the characters got what they wanted either. She had an amazing opportunity, and she could've done so much better with it.
@@beebuzz959 Fair enough. I deeply understand Jo’s arc myself but that honestly probably comes from a deep kinship with Ronan’s portrayal of the character. I find the focus of the 2019 films attention in that regard to be really interesting, the way it sorts the beats of the film into an order that makes you consider scenes as having different importance to the story than before (as long as we follow traditional story beats here). I think the way she’s able to draw parallels and knit scenes that were far apart together forces you to admire things in a different light, or assemble questions in your mind that later get answered thanks to who she chooses to show and where. Consider if she told the tale flat, like before. Her directing may then seem strange. But take Beth’s death, for example-putting her revealed to be okay next to her revealed to be dead in the exact same shot sequence and blocking, only with different visual tones? Devastating. For me, I wouldn’t have cried had she done it the typical way. But instead, her ideas revive the overdone material. That’s just my opinion though. It might be worth a focussed rewatch! EDIT: Ironically, this channel does a great job at outlining the scientific structure of a good story. The three acts, the dopamine cycle of a reader, etc. With all these in mind, it explains how Little Women 2019 simply just works as a film and how, when you’re adapting anything, what you’re doing is arguing to the audience what about it was important in the first place-like for example, breaking the fourth wall at the end of your film by cutting between a character agreeing to marry off her female protagonist, and herself running off with some unimportant man.
I agree that the BBC version of this scene is superior. One of the most effective reasons for me is that it never enters into Jo's mind that the book is in danger. She has left it trustingly in the attic, not attempted like Gerwig's Jo to hide it away. Until she sees the charred papers in the housekeeper's hand, BBC Jo could not have fathomed this event and so the betrayal is that much more grievous to her. This is similar to BBC's Amy having an expectation of being included in the theater night but then the unthinkable happening when Jo not only says she can't come but even argues against the reasonable solution provided by Meg. Jo's expectation of safety for her book demonstrates a higher level of betrayal, just as Amy's expectation of inclusion makes the rejection that much more painful. The BBC version also gives the viewer more opportunity to be surprised, as we don't see that Jo is fearful of her manuscript being destroyed. We don't even see the book in this scene until we observe Amy contemplating it in the attic. The hesitancy that Amy exhibits at that moment shows that she knows what she is about to do is clearly wrong, especially because her sister would never imagine it happening. Gerwig's version takes away the opportunity for the viewer to be shocked by Amy's actions because it's something that has already been put into our minds as a possibility when we saw Jo hiding the book.
The Gerwig version seems to be more realistic in showcasing a fight between sisters than the BBC one though. This is a main focus in a lot of Gerwig’s work. She’s not trying to make a scene that perfectly builds, she’s trying to connect with the viewers who have experienced this. Girls with siblings (especially female siblings) will find a lot of themselves within this movie. Emotions are crazy and unpredictable during these type of fights. Obviously, this isn’t broad appeal, but most of her work is meant to connect to girls and their experiences.
In my opinion, I would've written Amy to feel a lot more regretful/sheepish after her sister came back home with the candy bar, like that "uh oh" moment where she realizes she stepped way out of line.
Nah...Amy's character is such that if she doesn't get what she wants RIGHT NOW, it doesn't matter that she gets a gift or will get to see the play later.
I find this framing really helpful. Catherine Nichols wrote an essay for Jezebel a few years back - "One Weird Trick That Will Make Your Writing Addictive" - in which she argues that good storytelling is like a game of billiards, with the decisions and feelings of each character ricocheting off that of others. She maintains that women are typically better at this emotionally dynamic, up-and-down method of telling stories because they tend to be more attuned to the subtleties of social behavior. That essay changed my whole approach to writing but I've never seen anyone else frame it in those terms, until now.
My wife is a published author and I beta read all of her stuff. She's a wonderful writer and I thoroughly enjoy her stories. What you just said about women writing the emotional dynamics and all the ups and downs is certainly evident in her storytelling and is one of the things I enjoy about her writing. Also, that unexpected thing that Abbie talks about is another element I enjoy. I feel very fortunate to have a spouse who has written and published several books available to help me with my own stories. And now, I have this UA-cam channel too. 😁
The second clip brought me to tears. The sisterly love and conflict, the surprise, the subtle shifts in Amy's shame and smugness, are all incredible. I'm so impressed by this. I've never seen the 2017 version, but I have seen the 1990s version and I've seen the Greta Gerwig one, and I hated it compared to the one made in the 90s.
Little Women is my favorite book. And the 2019 version was my favorite but I will have go watch the BBC Version, thanks for all your help. I am now on my second book.
Abbie, you have articulated something that I have felt and been frustrated with in a bad script vs. a good script for YEARS! Thank you for breaking this down and really analyzing it. Excellent video!
A few thoughts to add to your excellent advice, Abbie. While writing my book, I ran into a dilemma early on, where I needed to portray strong emotional reactions; my first attempts resulted in dastardly "purple prose." Researching this further, I realized British films always evoked strong emotions...and I discovered why; they intentionally understate, creating a vast chasm between what is happening vs. what one is feeling. For me, this is the right way to go. Further thoughts: Years back, I attended a writing class given by Robert McKee, author of the book, Story. He spoke of "emotional charges" which are found within scenes. In his estimation--and I've found this to be valid, if there is no change in emotional charge within a scene, there is no scene. He further breaks down scenes into "beats." He was referring to dialogue, whereby each character's response is likened to a beat, and each beat, back and forth between characters, results in that change in emotional charge. Thank you, Abbie, for tutoring me through your videos. I have a long way to go, but the journey is worth it.
I have to disagree a little...the 2019 fight in my opinion was realistic to people who have sisters or brothers. And sometimes confrontation or fights are so fast and full of anger that doesn't let you to have a "careful and thinking" way of being. I actually believe that the 2019 were sisters instead of the other versions because of the way they speak to each other and the fight was very realistic to people who actually had confrontation with siblings, even tho I have to say that the fight was a little unrealistic because siblings don't have problem tearing you apart. That's why the other version is even less realistic cause the "talk" and the fight is almost polite and classy...real siblings fight don't look like that, they supposed to look childish and even clumsy....that's why 2019 catch me.
I think it is important, also, to remember the difference in the way siblings would communicate in times past versus the way they communicate now. I see a great deal of difference in how my brother and I communicated and how my grandchildren communicate.
I agree that it may be closer to realism, but in my opinion, that doesn’t necessarily mean it is as effective in terms of writing. One of the worst things that you can do in a novel is focus on ‘realism’ rather than good writing. Good writing is interesting and compelling precisely because it isn’t what people experience every day. Think about talking to many self-absorbed people - your mind starts wandering halfway through their stories about their mundane inter office politics. The only way to make it interesting is if the main character has unique, biting, sassy, retorts, which isn’t a ’realistic,’ everyday response. If you fill half a page with dialogue like, “hello - how are you - fine - how are things - oh, been busy…” people will throw your story down. If James Bond got shot just as much as he shot others, if he didn’t have flings with women because he was busy on a mission, and if he didn’t have snazzy taglines, people wouldn’t be as invested in the story. And in most cases, watching normal siblings fight is uncomfortable, makes the siblings look bad, and it’s boring. It’s usually petty, minor, and not worth spending time on. Theres a lot of parents out there who just want to screech, “oh, shut up already!” I would argue that even books that are based on real life and real people are based on people who do things that are in no way ordinary. People who led a movement that changed the world, something most people wouldn’t have the courage to do. Even then, it’s presented with faster pacing and extremely selective bits of high-tension dialogue. The recent film, “The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare,” is based on true events. I’m not calling it a perfect film, but it captures and keeps the attention because the scenarios are insane, and so are the characters. If you met the main character in real life, walking into your office and just taking stuff, you likely wouldn’t like them very much; but on the screen, that devil-may-care attitude is captivating. Why? Because we often admire and love to watch characters who do things that we would never have the guts to do. If you acted that way in real life, you would be socially ostracized. People would be tired of it. But people love to think of an imagined life where they could act that way. Not a realistic life that reflects how most people act - trapped by their fears and limiting beliefs.
@@winspiff I think you hit it well, here. Good writing and "realism" are not the same thing--more, "realism" is not really what writing or any art is really out to evoke. Art is out to evoke emotions, full stop. Reality is not a contrivance while art is. Art alludes to reality; it's not capable of, nor is it its intention to, re-create it. Emotions are internal; art has no choice but to hit those emotions by externalizing them for the audience. That takes artifice. As I've noted here, the notion that "realism" is preferred bespeaks an observer of art, not an artist. Participants will know what I'm talking about, here.
Honestly, I don’t see the problem, that’s how sibling fights go, no matter how big or small the problem is. This is the most accurate fight scene I’ve ever scene in television. And I think it didn’t have to be emotional to work, because it’s actually relatable.
Amazing as always, and I totally see the point for story telling. However, objectively, not as an author, I do appreciate Greta’s version as it feels very realistic of how sister dynamics play out. Having sisters myself I can honestly testify that there are days where our moods do not build up and change a whole ton in a scene because we are already at odds with each other, frustrated and defensive against the whiny.
Exactly. I certainly do remember that we could just fly at each other without any real buildup. (Funnily and on a related note, sometimes because she stole one of my books and handled it like her own books; just left it lying around somewhere where it was at great danger of water damage. At times because she read through my diary and even made notes on the side...) But by gosh, that slap in the other version by the older sister felt so thrilling. I felt that in my older sister soul. I like her well enough now, but might still be harboring some resentment over the fact that when I flew off the handle people in the family immediately backed her up, but when she did, well, I was the older, I was supposed to just... Bear with it. Plus, why wasn't I wiser and prevent her getting agitated which led to her harassing/hitting ME? But god save my soul if I dared retaliate. (Not even a year. Not even a year of age difference.)
While I can see the differences between the scenes, I didn't FEEL the difference OP was describing... until the gift came out, but I don't see how the characters actions leading up to that changed that. Maybe giving a definition for what "emotional dynamic change" means would have helped? I mean... there are changes in the emotions and dynamics in both scenes. Is it just "don't make things happen too suddenly"? Because I feel like that could have been said easier in a lot less time.
This might be an unpopular opinion but i still prefer the 1994 version of this scene better to a degree (and this is just my opinion judging by those scenes alone, not the entire film): In the 1994 ver, we see amy being whiney and it kinda gives the impression of her being childish just because she didn't get invited to see the play, it escalates to her being so angry she yelled at joe and tried to throw something at her. It shows she is currently very angry and as a response to that anger she burns joe's book, it makes sense on why she did it. She wasn't thinking clearly and was blinded by anger. It also makes even more sense that, since it was established that she can act childish previously, it makes sense as to why she chose to burn her sisters book despite it being over something small as not getting invited to a play. In her mind she doesn't care how much that book means to joe, she just want to make her suffer effectively (it showing the childishness that was shown previously). Her thought process makes sense on why she did it. When joe comes back, she immediatelly suspects amy, which in my opinion is kinda shows how much she knows her sister, no evidence, no nothing, just suspects her cause she knew her sister and how she is. Misguided yes, but realistic. Then they went on a back and fourth "no, i didn't", "yes, you did", "no, i didn't", "yes, you did" then BAM attacks her out of nowhere out of just the assuption her sister took her book and to me it's way more realistic on how siblings behave (imo) and how most sibling spats are, then when both are high on anger and attacking each other amy stops lying and reveals that she did burn joe's book, when before she denied being rensponsible. In the BBC version, i do agree in the whole set up of her being exited then dissapointed that she's not allowed to go that makes the situation have more impact and make us care about it more, but after that she's genuinely upset about not being invited then swore she would make her sister suffer acting like this was the worst thing that could've happened when it's just about not being invited and it's not the angry type of upset when ur judment is clouded and you say mean words that are driven by anger, it's just looks like just being upset (imo, based on the actors face) and it's a little off putting to me cause it wasn't established that she could be this way from the scene. Whereas the other one it is established she could be childish. And then when she tries to burn the book, her movement's are slow and her expression is ...upset but kindof guilty? The problem to me is that while the other scene she's clearly burning the book cause she's misguided by anger (you can see her doing things like closing the drawer abruptly, putting the first page quickly in the fire, clearly showing she's still driven by anger) while in the BBC one, The slowness gives the impression she's thinking through her actions or at least reluctant but still being upset. Especially in the burning scene, near the end of the burning she doesn't look that upset but she still continues to burn the book and it gives me the impression that she knows what she's doing is wrong deep down but she still does it. Over not being invited. It makes her look more petty, and it makes what she did worse. Though i have to agree that the filmaking is better in the BBC. The flames shining on her face contrasted by the dull background, the flip-flopping between the play and joe being happy to amy gloomily burning joe's book. 10/10 😍👏 Then when joe comes back, and in this version she gives her a gift and apologizes for what she did wrong even saying she'll invite her next week but amy is still bitter about not being invited *that day* . Not even looking a bit guilty after she got something nice instead from her sister. Then when the book was revealed to be burnt she looked resentful and not even a bit guilty even though *again* her sister did something nice to her. Then she just admits that she was the one who burnt her book and acts like it was a big deal that she was wronged and this was why she had to make her sister suffer. It makes her seem more sinister just to do this over a small thing. Also she just straight up says she's the one who did it just because joe asked, while in the 1994 version she denies doing it at first but only snapping and revealing the truth after joe attacked her. The 1994 made sense on why she revealed the truth and also it's just SO realistic when the other sibling just denies they did anything wrong until pushed hard enough (figuratively), while the other scene had no reason to other than to make her suffer in her face i guess. But what i think they did do well to me is because the scene made it seem like what amy did was even worse, the payoff of joe's reaction and meg's words after the fight was way more statisfiying and i do agree that it does make the scene more...dramatic. even if the context does make me think that everybody is making such a big deal out of all of this despite it just being a small thing in retrospect (except the book burning, i get why it's a big deal to joe and her reaction is understandable) While on the other scene it felt more like a misguided sisterly spat, more fitting to the problem at hand. Also this is a side rant but i just love how there are just more little details in the 1994 ver that makes the siblings feel real. Them talking over eachother, responding fast, getting emotional over little things, whining, the other being so done, meg's reaction seeing amy throwing something over being upset is more playful, little quips like: "Beth has her piano, and i'm so lonely 😔" "I can teach you chords 😮" "I don't want chords, i want to go 😒" It just makes me feel : ❤❤❤ So basicly: - the 1994 felt more realistic and the motivations make more sense - the BBC one had better tension and filming, but the motivations make less sense (or make amy look worse imo) I think putting them together would make it perfect: Amy has the expectation to go, but then denied, then got her hopes up again, then denied, kinda whines a bit to meg, then denied firmly by joe, (and in here basicly the tone goes slowly from casual to getting serious and the climaks of it being joe's firm denial) then amy snapping angrily and yelling at joe abt making her suffer and running to her room. We get the flip-flopping like in the BBC but this time everytime we cut to amy her movement's feel angered, fast, and her face being clearly upset and angry. Then when they come back, things go the same as the BBC, joe's in a better mood, she apologizes, gives amy a present, but this time amy is shocked she got a present from joe, and has a tinge of guilt on her face remembering what she did. We get the reveal the book was burnt from the lady, joe's upset, suspects amy, amy denies it, but joe gets more angry at amy while not beliving her, because of this amy's guilt just dissapears and replaced by anger, as they get more angry amy snaps and tells the truth while yelling, then ensue the fight and aftermath like in the BBC, only this time take out meg's words about "you will not find comfort with me" And there u go :D But this is all just my opinion 😅
1994? Are you comparing the BBC series (2017) to the 1994 movie starring Winona Ryder, Kirsten Dunst and Susan Sarandon? Or did you mistakenly write 1994 when you meant 2019 which is the Gerwig version? And by the way, it’s Jo which is short for Josephine, not Joe which is short for Joseph.
I had my first introduction to Little Women with the Greta Gerwig version and didn't think it was worth all the hype. I actually teared up at the clip of the BBC version, so I'm going to have to give that one a try and maybe find a new favorite!
while I definitely agree with the differences you pointed out, being a screenwriter, I find that features are vitally different from miniseries in screen time. bbc had literally more time (even if not much more) to develop certain scenes and sequences, and that is crucial when creating better dynamics. great work though!
The BBC version is a much better ride. I love how you compared the dynamic range to music. That drove it home for me. Thanks, Abbie! Just what I needed to hear and see today.
Absolutely brilliant to bring sound into conveying emotions. You're spot on! Sound is the first sense that gets "plugged in" so to speak. We start hearing before we're born, so it's a very primal way for us to navigate the world. The "circle of talent" for films fully encompasses everything from sound design (such as folly), voice overs, music, etc. All of it goes into this subtle art of pushing emotions in audiences. For instance, the sound of alarms blaring, footsteps running across metal platforms, the creaks and moans of a submarine, the hisses of air in the background, incoherent barking of orders are all done in service to make you feel anxious. The sound alone gives us the impression the sub is in trouble and our tension is heightened by nature of the camera placing us in what we think is a sinking ship. Without those extra sounds, the story doesn't land with the same gravitas. The absence of sound can also be used strategically. Either total silence or being particular about the types of sound. Studio Ghibli films use this technique, but so do non-animated films like Saving Private Ryan. Specifically, the Storm of Beaches of Normandy scene where we even get ringing in our ears and no music and other sounds get muted. This puts us in the perspective of the soldiers themselves and becomes emotionally resonating, something that really sinks in after the battle when the music finally does come in. Great video :DDD
This was good and gives me some ideas for my rewrite. The issue I have with Abby's videos is that she uses movies and TV shows for examples rather than showing good writing vs bad writing. If you have issues with dialog, how do you learn to write good dialog from a movie where emotions are communicated visually? Reading and watching are worlds apart and I wish she would focus more on how to create a written scene with this kind of impact.
The 1994 version is my favourite the 90s cinematography always makes me feel warm and homely, and the acting is very heartfelt, and actually having amy be a child makes her actions more forgivable, though that version does make adult Amy very tactless around jo, whereas she got much better and less selfish as an adult in the book good wives there is an entire chapter dedicated to showing Amys selfless, gracious and kind actions when slighted by her rich snobby neighbours that is the reason her aunt invites her to Europe instead of jo.
one of the most important rules as writer. The results of a characters actions MUST exceed their expectations to be good. But SHOULD exceed the audiences, to be great.
I have quite a few comments on your assessment, some thoughts of my own (as the oldest of three girls, all homeschooled, ages 17, (almost) 15, and 9). This is long. I apologize. I just wanted to fully analyze the video here (can you tell I'm in the middle of a college-level comp class???) The emotional buildup of Gretta's version isn't as good, I will agree. And the BBC argument, especially the latter half, really does strike a chord with the viewer. It puts you on edge emotionally. The first is definitely too fast paced. But I like how the first half of the argument is presented in Greta Gerwig's interpretation. It's been forever since I read the book, so I'm not going to compare it to canon writing. On the topic of Amy being a whiny brat: My sisters fight all the time. Even before they are speaking, they are annoyed with each other over something. (They have their good moments and more neutral moments, but oftentimes the older (14) is bothered by something the younger (9) is doing, and the younger gets defensive and annoyed at being bossed around. As we know from the story, Jo and Amy's prior relationship up to this point hasn't been shown to be fantastic. They're sisters, meaning they're on each other's nerves 24/7. As a result, Amy WON'T expect for Jo to say yes to see the show, therefor she goes to Meg. (Note that even Meg is wanting to say yes, to appease Amy, but she's not fighting on either side.) I can confirm that this is true for my family too. I get along better with my sisters than they do with each other. The concept of this scene, in theory, is actually really good, I think. BUT, the pacing isn't great. Things feel too rushed. There are no pauses. There is no nuisance or subtlety in emotions. As a result, without that "push and pull" of emotions, there is no breathing space. There is no tenseness. I feel like Greta's version is more realistic. As such, it doesn't pack that punch that BBC holds. We've seen this argument a million times between our own siblings. It's nothing new. (Also might I mention, I love Beth's statement of, "I can teach you chords on piano". Such a peacekeeper. And how Amy bites back in anger. When the younger sibling is so angry that they get mad at everyone. Again, an experience I'm familiar with.) The second part escalates too quickly. It's no surprise that Jo assumes the worst, but I feel like her reaction feels forced (decent down the stairs with little to no expression on her face). Her range of emotions isn't as visible. It's very subdued at first. But I DO like the way Amy's character was handled. Though she isn't smug about burning the book, Amy is still bitter. She's still frustrated that things didn't go her way, and that sours the mood of the rest of the family. The BBC version feels a bit more "rose tinted" to begin with. Amy seems like a completely different character, more optimistic and happy. Jo still doesn't want her to tag along, but she's using more reasoning for it. I feel like this version fails at really capturing Jo and Amy's sibling-hate relationship at the beginning, which is why I prefer Gretta's version (in this case). It's less emotion-packed to begin with, but it DOES set up the second half better because Amy so deeply wants to join in. She seems less like an annoying younger sister, which is why Jo's argument is less of "I don't want you to tag along" and more "you can't tag along". Which also makes Amy's comment of "I hate you" feel more dramatic and unwarranted. It doesn't feel like sibling rivalry as much so, and it seems like Jo would have let Amy join along if complications hadn't been there to begin with, such as the seating issue. (There's something about, "you annoy me, go away, don't join me to the movies" that feels so familiar to arguments at my house, so I'm a bit biased in preferring it.) BBC's approach to the second half is definitely better. Jo's realization of what Amy did, to Amy's reaction and shock at Jo being reasonable when she first got home (giving her the chocolates). I don't think that the plot itself (motivations of characters specifically) is better or worse necessarily. Jo in Gretta's version still feels annoyed with Amy's presence, and Amy in Gretta's version still feels like she's in the right. Jo in BBC's version feels like she's already grown from the experience, or at least, cooled off a lot. And Amy in BBC's version is having to process that, while also STILL justifying herself and making herself the victim (so burning the book isn't wrong). Both sides are incredibly plausible in real life. Two different resolutions to arguments. (Jo moving on and forgiving vs Jo returning home and her mood souring as she sees Amy again.) I don't like how Amy takes responsibility RIGHT AWAY for burning the papers. I understand she's proud of herself, but I would like to have seen a little conflict of guilt, like "oh, Jo's sorry and is trying to make up, but I burnt her book" and then with Meg appeasing her, that further guilt that "oh, I got what I wanted, but also I needlessly punished Jo". Emotionally, that could have been fun to see play out. (Granted, the scene might go on for too long. Guess that's what fanfiction's for...) I like the sort of denial Amy has towards burning the book and Jo accusing her in Gretta's version, as it really shows that they both see the worst in each other. But I do feel that the build-up to that argument could have been better handled. That being said, this is my analysis. I like the plot of Gretta's version better, but I like the dialogue, pacing, and acting of the BBC's version. A mix of both would have been nice. But I would happily watch both versions. Each interpretation of the scene is unique and feels like a different story, in a way. Additional note: arguments could look like both examples. My sister's do have other issues regarding handling emotions well (ie. ADHD). Different characters will handle conflict differently, so you must consider their range of emotions, their past experiences with other characters, and how they would most likely react to a situation not going their way.
On any other other channel you would have been “ticketed” by the YT Comment Length Patrol. Only on Abbie’s Emmons’ channel would a comment this long be thumbs upped - and not be subjected to worthless negativity about the length and nothing about the content. This is just another reason why Abbie’s channel and the community she has built is so awesome! I actually somewhat disagree with your assessment that the action and reaction in this scene was reasonable and realistic. My sister is seven years older than I am. I never had any real expectation of being invited to go out with her for the evening when she was going out with friends. Nor did I ever ask to. So this scene hits me differently. That said, I still enjoyed reading your comment and found your perspective all the more interesting because it’s different than mine. That’s what story does - bring out the various perspectives 😄
No, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I don't have sisters but have a younger brother and the "made-up-mind before actual fight" is true. Of course, there's the fact that BBC's holds the younger sibling's card of using excitement and "pretty please" in hopes of winning a mostly lost argument. Her switch to betrayed is natural for a spoiled child's tantrum when she doesn't get what she wants and the smirk in the fight after they return and gift her the tickets feels like a "Well… you fixed your mistake too late, you must accept the consequences of crossing me. I'll take the tickets anyway". Whilst Joe is trying to make amends and appease her just to find "the brat" has ruined her work for "a play she's already bought her tickets for" and is not even a little sorry. Greta's version has a whiny girl using the younger sibling card of annoying and whining until they give in, but also doesn't work on Joe, which end up switching the energetic trial to frustrated anger and throwing an object. In this version there's no "fix it" amend from Joe and her finding out the book is missing. When she doesn't find her work there's a time of reaction, we don't get to spend with her, the obvious deduction of Amy taking it. Her passive-aggressive short fuse was perfect, is the boiling anger she was holding in upstairs and when descending to the main floor just to be lit by Amy's revelation. As a sibling the "Has anyone seen my book?" would've been better as a "Where is my book, Amy?", because it doesn't play and means business and suits the lashing out better. In the end, I like both because they look like situations in their lives, maybe one day Amy tries one card or the other, in any way stays in character. Same for Joe, in the first one she has a reactive response to the sudden scorched paper of her novel and lashing out, in contrary the second one presents an active response to not finding her book and deciding to confront Amy. Needless to say, I have no empathy towards Amy in any case, but I wouldn't have hit her. I would've stopped talking to her altogether, but that's just me. Amy needed real consequences.
@@BeAWritter I would have to disagree with you on the hitting part. In both cases, Amy burned Jo's book out of spite, and in both scenes, it's due to Amy being a brat over not going to some play. The first one is pretty much walking on eggshells to a ticking time bomb; they're pretty much at each other's throats; as it was mentioned in the other analysis, it felt faster, and the characters were stereotyped as big siblings vs younger siblings. The second one, however, shows that there was a reason for Amy to not go. It wasn't out of spite. It was because they were invited, and if Amy were to tag along, it would become an inconvenience, a fifth wheel in this scenario. The motive was still there for Amy to burn Jo's book, and normally, there are bad feelings on both ends of the spectrum in arguments. Jo felt bad for Amy and was willing to make it up to her, but after she did a nice thing and found out that Amy went the extra mile to burn the book, there was that moment of disbelief before the explosion, and in that moment when you yourself feel that you have been wronged, you don't look the other way. You want to make them know what they did was wrong, and the one slap Amy got is only a fraction of the pain Jo felt. As someone who has been through situations where the feelings I felt were anger and hurt, I know the two outcomes that would commonly happen. Either you let the hurt take control, and you cry, or you feel anger, which comes out like Jo's did. I'll have to give this a watch to get a better grasp of the whole story, but in this scene, Amy was not in the right for burning Jo's book over a play that they intended on taking her to the following week.
@@BeAWritter I agree with you - but I’ll have to disagree on having no empathy for Amy. As a younger sibling who developed BPD due to emotional neglect (partially because of my older sister), the anguish I felt from the daily rejection I was submitted to was unbearable. It often got to a point where I would want to do anything to hurt those who hurt me, even if I deeply loved them. I’d still be deeply remorseful of whatever misdeed I had done in retaliation - but I wouldn’t always show this both in an attempt of self-preservation, and also due to how intense my anger was. What Amy did was despicable (as an artist myself), but I also deeply empathize with her.
Honestly, as one of four sisters (we share some traits and dynamics with the March sisters too so we relate greatly with them) i felt i could connect more with the scene in Gerwig's adaptation than in the BBC series and even the Winona Ryder adaptation at that. It felt less "writey" if i could phrase it so, less formulaic, because arguments in real life between siblings are disjointed and have no formula. My little sister is Amy personified and have screamed and thrown shoes when she felt wronged, while me and my eldest sisters laughed and waved away her dramatic antics cuz it's old news. My oldest sisters has denied me and the youngest the fun of hanging out with them and their cool social friend group and it really hurt. Amy's spiteful and smug face coupled with Jo's wrath and rage followed by a screaming physical altercations is very real and hits close to home. Both of them were petty and immature, and look the most childish and childlike in behaviour in the Gerwig adaptation imo. The BBC one with their fancy poetic prosey words just throw off the whole naturalism of the relationship between the siblings. Like "did u see what she did to me" and "don't look to me for comfort" felt so rehearsed. Then again, i might also be projecting the experiences i have with my sisters onto the scene whichvalso isn't fair i guess
I agree. I like the concepts in the video, just not the examples. Gerwig's version is more naturalistic; the BBC version feels stilted in comparison, though it's good in its own way.
I agree. I am the youngest of two sisters. Gerwigs version felt more real to me. Rarely did my siblings ever give me concrete reasons for not inviting me. It was often in cruel "You aren't allowed" "Your too little" "You would ruin it" sort of ways. It would happen often, you make an arguement even though you know it will be shut down, but are still heart broken and hurt anyways. I find it more realisitc and less contrived when the emotional swings are more nuanced and don't swing so wildly.
There is a difference between realistic writing and good writing, Greta's movie is not a great adaptation. Amy in the book is annoying but she is a cute young girl so you sympathise with her, in this adaptation the adult actress does come as more annoying so you don't connect with her being ignored by her older sister.
to be fair you could see Jo in the 2019 version simmering and breaking with anger. It's sudden because they are young girls and they can be brash and yes "passive aggressive". i found it realistic and believable. i do believe you were on point though about how Amy's disappointment wasn't built up properly, since she was acting as though she was going to be denied from the start. the older version did that build up much better
I love seeing this from a writing perspective, as I learned it from the acting perspective. There’s an acting technique called “tactics and actions.” An actor who uses this technique analyzes their script and asks, “What does my character want from the other character in this scene?” Then breaks down their script and assigns “tactics” for their lines (guilt trip, flatter, bribe, comfort, wound, etc). These tactics are how they try to achieve the goal from the other character. Good acting is an actor having a clear goal, using tactics to get what they want from the other character(s), and reacting honestly to the other actor’s tactics against them - often tactic changes are reactions to the other actors’ tactics. So in scripts where the screenwriter or playwright doesn’t include subtext, it’s an actor’s job with the help of the director to create emotional dynamics.
The photographer in me can't unsee how much better your second example is shot in the way that the faces are readable at all times while in the first one everything is just so mushy.
Right?! I didn’t buy into the emotions for the BBC version. This scene just made me hate Amy as a character. The BBC felt like more forced dramatic technique. Greta’s version felt more like a real argument with my sister. What I like about Greta’s version is that it felt like real relationships between sisters. BBC felt like actors acting. Greta’s version felt like sisters living together.
No, it really isn't about "preference." One works, one doesn't. Full stop. More, the Gerwig version really is not "more realistic." It's very mannered and actorly. The BBC version hits emotions far more powerfully and captures therefore the actual feelings that would realistically be felt. Genuine footage of the actual event as might be found in a secret recording would not give any context and might land like Gerwig's but here's the thing--Gerwig gave that context! And it was equally flat. The final conflict depicted was not supported as was the BBC version. But that's how art works--it's an abbreviation and a telegraphing of what would otherwise never be picked up. It works incredibly well on the page--but to just watch? No. Emotions are simply not seen, being internal. So, again, Gerwig's final fight might work to look like the real thing might have, but literally none of the rest would. BBC's laid the groundwork and earned the crescendo. But then, this is all really a master class for actual creatives, not casual fans, so, your mileage not only might but for sure will vary. TLDR; if Gerwig's landed better for you, then you're not in the field. BBC's is instructive for those in the field.
@magnus_mode so many words but the movie version still feels like sibling arguing and the other as a play. And at the end of the day it should be enjoyable for casual watchers
@@magnus_mode i agree, the more realistic portrayal explained by bbc should be modeled after for example of good framing. indeed our subjective tastes could lead us to appreciate gerwig’s but it’s definitely not material as quality to teach in class and that’s why it ultimately falls off.
@@magnus_mode its a movie. What works and what doesn't is subjective by its very nature and you are not going to invalidate someone's opinions with your pretentiousness. Its a matter of preference.
Art of The Story talked about this, he said write out a scene without words - just the emotions you want the character to feel. If the same emotion keeps showing up, it means you're slowing down the pace. He used the scene from A Beautiful Minds dinner to show it.
The Claire Danes portrayal of Beth, when she dies. I was still a kid then and I still have flashbacks, it was so heart wrenching I feel like I have ptsd from watching it. That version was a masterpiece. But I havent seen the BBC one yet though so lets see..
Such an interesting analysis! I had heard from actor interviews that its important to 1) have a build up to a rage for it to feel authentic, as for most people that's how it works 2) choose one moment to cry, otherwise in a movie it'll seem too emotively repetitive. I think these things apply to writing as well, and it was really helpful to break down the expectation/dynamic range to heartbreaking moments for characters. When I've had to emotionally process hard moments and epiphanies myself, that's more what it felt like. I think too tragedy and horror moments (points of no return basically) for characters are often quiet but profound, where they internalize some message and come to an irrevocable decision. I've recently been struggling with a similar pivotal scene for two characters going through a similarly charged scene, and your insights and comparison to music was really illuminating! Thank you!
I never noticed this scene's emotional dynamic before. I did watch both versions of BBC's Little Women and Greta Gerwig. Figuring both from this particular scene was interesting and could feel the emotional impact it had. I didn't notice this the first time. So, I many need to watch both for next time to pick up on it. As far as the adaptions to Little Women (which by the way Little Women is my favorite novel and saw all the adaptations. I'm a huge fan) I found that the screenplay depends on whose writing it. I haven't studied Little WOmen in this way or any movie before but I now have the appreciation for it. In the end, because I resonate with the first adaptation with Wyona Ryder and Susan Saradon the 1994 version because of myself growing alongside those actors including Christian Bale and Kirsten Dunst whereas Greta Gerwig's version with Emma Watson and Sairoise Ronan I feel there's a clash between relating to too many different versions that I couldn't settle with. This is why I prefer the original version from that perspective. I believe the writing of the book was fantastic and the directors. stay true to the story made it all worthwhile. The screenwriting on the otherhand in the 1994 version is far more in depth than Grets Gerwig in 2019 but if i had to compare the original to the BBC Little Women I would say the original. This is because Wyona Ryder and Kisten Dunst do a fantastic job of emotional dynamic and potrays the feelings more as they are very different in age. Amy in the 1994 version appears to be younger and still a child compared to Jo who is much older, a woman, and carry more load of the responsibiliites as an older sibling.
As the youngest of three daughters in my family, I sympathize so much with Amy in Gretta's version. Her going into the scene already knowing she'll be denied is how I've felt so often; you keep hoping that maybe they'll take pity on you this time, but they deny you again. Even the way she was whining rather than being less childish about it is accurate, because you think, "If I keep it less serious than it actually feels for me, then it won't hurt as badly when they reject me." If you had to truly ask them for something, with no other facades put on and they reject you, then they're not just rejecting the childish mask you put up, but they're rejecting YOU as a person. You get to this point where you've almost completely given up, and it's agonizing to go through AND to watch, so I really liked how it was done. Another thing was the way she had no real build up; she could tell that her time to try persuade them to bring her with was almost up, and rather than going through all these different stages that could take too long, she goes straight to "Please take me. I'll die if you don't."
In Gretta´s version i was actually kinda on Amy´s side. The argument and emotions felt so real, as did the older sisters just ignoring the youngest and not taking her seriously.
Idk if I agree with this take. This video seems to paint Greta’s take as intentionally “less impactful,” when in reality, she just decided to take a more grounded approach to this beat compared to others in the film. The BBC version seems to play the scene for more drama and emphasis, but that doesn’t mean one is inherently better than the other. Pacing in film is so vital that to take a scene out of context like this and compare the emotional weight candidly misrepresents the intention of both films IMO.
I liked the 2019 version.... because two of my favorite actor are there... these two give me an emotional roller coaster as soon as they appear on screen. I will definitely try to put these concepts in my writing... but I still have difficulties to balance everything... emotion vs plot, when to go on vs when to take more time to enter in a scene... I'm new to this... and I have to stop thinking I must rewrite everything as soon as Abbie puts on a new video 😅 BTW... that shaked emoji just killed me every time
Really great comparison showing the emotional dynamics. But justice to the two different approaches the Gerwig version had more to do with characterization and setting up Amy as almost irredeemable. And honestly in the Gerwig version I don't think we ever forgive Amy, but in the novel and the other versions of the novel we do.
I think I preffer the sadistic way blondie burned the book page by page, but the smack in the bbc version was well deserved. I think overall the bbc version is better, but the burned book revalation is mutually exchangable. If I stitch the two and flip the book burning and the "you burned my book bitch scenes" the story would still work. The two reaction segments make all the difference. The shock on the older women's faces in the bbc version is a classic bystander reaction many movies use.
I like that you use two different versions of the same scene as an example, since it removes a lot of other differences that also affects the impact of the scene.
This made me realize how much of a burning hatred I still caring for Amy lol. Reading the book, watching any adaptation, I always found her insufferable at best and unbelievably horrid at worst. I’m with Jo on this one lol. Your way of analyzing them though was really good. I hadn’t really thought about contrasting different version of the same kind of scene and I find it fascinating. Thank you!
The BBC version is just WAY too overly dramatic for me. I dont think the actress playing Jo is able to carry the gravity that this scene wants to uptake. I definitely prefer the 2019 version. Its one of my favorite movies of all time and i could just sit there and disect all the directing and writing choices forever
Thank you! I've read Little Women every year for the past 60 years, and I've seen every adaptation I could find, and the BBC version is my favorite. That scene where John goes to war as the girls sing Land of the Leal is such a powerful interpretation of a single sentence from the book. I can't even type this memory of it without tears.
Thank you! This was extremely helpful, and I can already see how it will drastically improve my novel. One other thing I noticed between the two little women scenes was that the effective one also made effective use of foreshadowing to tie the book burning to that argument, which helps the reader to feel more empathy when she acts out.
What irritated me about the first one (2019) is I never knew why Amy wasn't allowed to go to the theater. I haven't seen the 2017 one. And I was like why would it be a big deal if she went? 😭 I didn't know there would be another showing of the play next week Jo should've said that! Omg! This is why you don't act on impulse. I think people would be more torn about whose side they're on if Jo did something that was on the same level of bad as Amy destroying her novel. I totally understand the feeling of wanting to go somewhere but not being invited or allowed tho. It hurts.
I inadvertently did this in book two of my series (currently writing it)! My character struggles to use his magic, mainly because he's looking for instant gratification, and it doesn't happen (expectation/reality!), and it isn't until nearly three-quarters of the way into the book that it finally works for him. Why? Because he let go of his unrealistic expectations and accepted reality. His epiphany moment happens when he goes back to an old friend (his guitar), where he gets lost in the music. When he stopped thinking about it, stopped trying to force it, stopped wanting it to happen, his magic flows. The scene works, but I didn't know why. I get it now. I could hear him playing his guitar when I wrote it, and I still can hear him playing when I read back through it. So... thanks, Abbie!! :) Now to do this, intentionally, elsewhere in the story!
Wow, when you were talking about "Expectations vs Reality" I couldn't help but think about everything I went through when I was joining the Army. I specifically joined in order to learn a skilled trade, chose a trade that had a direct correlation in the civilian world, and then prepared myself for basic training by running everyday, conditioning my body to get it used to the severe abdominal cramps afterward, and learning how to do pushups, situps etc. I had never been physically active in my life. When I finally did make it to basic I suffered from extremely severe bronchitis and was vomiting and coughing non-stop the entire time. Despite this, I managed to pass all my PT tests through the sheer power of will. Finally, after all that I make it to my unit and the first thing that happens is that I am not allowed to do machining, and if I try to weld anything I get harrassed terribly by toxic leadership. All I am allowed to do are worthless details while the other soldiers get to actually weld and do machining. You have no idea how devastating this was. There was no happy ending to this. My life should be turned into a movie because it was absolutely insane the bs I had to go through.
22:05 the fight choreography is much more realistic too. a back and forth, some yelling, shoves, pulling hairs/ears, finish with a big heavy-looking slap with her whole weight into it. the first one, the fight was almost like a brawl, with characters rolling around, and that awful, awful shaky cam taken straight from a low budget action movie
I have to say comparing the two new ones that I’d never watched and then watching the old one, I still prefer it. She waits till she comes home and leaves her book out at night, and she takes it downstairs and is caught burning her book. That scene is faster paced, demonstrated with action and not dialogue. Don’t get me wrong the movie is slow paced and falls off a little but in general the show me don’t tell me principle of the 90s makes those movies very entertaining.
Never read the book, but I felt like much of the dialogue in Gerwig's film lacked subtext. The characters often said exactly what was on their mind, which felt forced and fake.
In music, dynamics mark the passage of time, a reminder that this is not an eternal existence, but a finite reality. Thus the motion of time presents an expectation of something on the horizon rather than stagnation, or the absence of change. It is the blessing and curse of this existence, to be aware of time.
I, for one, hate when women tell me that I'm not allowed to come. 8:35 More importantly though, this is definitely an extremely insightful video that cuts to a core principle of writing that I probably subconsciously knew, but was never able to put into words or actively consider. Watching this will, I think, really help me to actively consider this element in my own writing in the future. In fact, it's one of the more generally insightful writing analyses I've watched on here.
Please do many more of these comparison videos. Your ability to break down scenes is wonderful. I learned allot from this as I watched both of these films in the past month. A Sense and Sensibility comparison would be awesome as well. You are absolutely beautiful btw. Kind talented, educated and driven. Encourages the rest of us to stay focused and achieve our goals. Thanks for doing what you do!
If I have to compare I would say the first one felt more real. I have first hand experience how passive agressive people argue. It is more like this. A sudden - often unfounded - outburst of anger and rage. As for the second version? I didn't feel like Amy thought she is going to be invinted. This kind of "Then I'll go too" type of remarks are telltale sings of emotional manipulation [and not enthusiasm]... Also after the fight I don't think Amy did realize deep down that she did something wrong. I haven't seen anything resembling remorse... Just a narcissistic girl's victim mentality... The two scenes portrayed to entirely different personalities. Maybe it is just me, but for me the first version was somewhat more captivating. The second one felt like it is too much...
If I might offer some feedback, I thoroughly enjoyed your breakdown of the scenes, and your emoji game is on point! That said, I would have loved to see both scenes first before you jumped into the discussion. I find the constant starting and stopping frustrating and distracting when trying to establish an opinion on something, and it was pretty clear from the start which one you favored. I'm sure you have to consider total video length, but if it doesn't add too much time, I would have found that setup more engaging. Overall, though, I found your video quite interesting and informative. Thank you for sharing!
Hey Abbie! I've been watching your channel for years while simultaneously writing my magnum opus. Every time I get into a creative funk and can't seem to write, all I have to do is watch one of your videos on writing and I'm back to the page. Thanks girl! You're not only a great fellow writer, but an awesome cheerleader for the writing community. I pray for your writing life to be blessed as you have blessed others 🥰
Oh... my goodness. I've never seen any adaptation of "Little Women", nor have I ever read the story itself. With that being said, I think not having context really made the examples you gave pack a huge punch here. The first example reallly didn't make me feel anything, whereas the BBC version had me shouting at the screen. Fantastic examples! I really understand the concept you're describing here, which is great because I often struggle with this kind of writing advice. Thank you so much for this information!
It's so crazy that this video came out right now because I randomly came to this same realization just a couple weeks ago by analyzing episodes of I Love Lucy! It's absolutely true
I love it when you do Cade studies, it really brings out your passionate personality. This was really great and makes me want to see the movie. I’ve been told I’m a lot like Jo
I am so glad you made a comparison between Greta Gerwig's version and the BBC version because I don't hear anyone talk about BBC's adaption, which I find to be my favorite. Of course, because it is a series, there is a lot more exploration of the characters in general, even Marmee herself. However, I still find it chokingly hard to sympathize with Amy in the BBC version. She just comes off as an absolute demon. I think in the Greta Gerwig version, I can at least see some humanity in the immature girl. And since GG's version is better understood by those who know the story already, it makes the moment anticipated enough, I think. Especially with the way that Jo comes downstairs and immediately suspects what Amy did, and that neither have to say much to the other for the uproar to occur. I still find it engaging. It's still, in some way, realistic. But overrall, every adaptation of Little Women was meant to portray a different message, which just speaks to how profoundly complex the story is and how much more is left to explore with each character. Which is probably why many of us never feel like we have closure with the March family. I've watched the 1933, 1994, and BBC version as well as some pretty expositiory clips of GG's version and I think they all offer diverse perspectives on the story. However, to me, the BBC version really highlights the family dynamics and just how connected the March sisters are to one another and need each other no matter what they feel in the moment. And how they should not regret the past or fear the future but be grateful for each other nevertheless. It follows Jo's maturity in becoming less tempered and stubborn, seeing the value of all her sisters, etc. All the girls, even Beth, learn what it truly means to be women; complex creatures who act with humility, strength, reflection, and passion. Essentially, facets of their own mother. This is why I believe it portrays the heart and purpose of Louisa May Alcott's story in the best way yet.
10:30 it’s probably a mixture of both. She is upset but she is terrified of what the truth is. She’s probably hoping her sister hid it away somewhere, but she also worried about it being damaged. I imagine she has likely been working on the novel an incredibly long time and that work is irrecoverable.
This is one of the best presentations I've seen on the difference between a Good Story and an Outstanding One. Contrasting two versions of the same scene is brilliant and I commend you for not only the clever emoji scale but for distilling the explanation of how each scene attained the level it did - in 3 concise statements. I believe this video addressed both visual and auditory learners on multiple levels and I'd love to see the same technique applied to your other videos. I only wonder if there are enough movies with comparable versions? 😂 BTW as someone with a lifelong hearing deficit who only recently attained "normal" (assisted) hearing levels - I've been amazed at how music and sound are used to manipulate e.g. I find the use of music to influence newscasts and documentaries appalling.
I vote the same scene from the 1994 Little Woman Movie is better then both of these two examples lol Well I love that version more then these two to begin with
The Winona Ryder version is my favorite, but I haven't watched the BBC version. I'll definitely check it out. I tried the Greta version and it was so flat and the acting was wooden, that I couldn't through more than a few scenes. Thanks for the analysis! I always enjoy your insights.
I am a story teller by way of Dungeon Master ( D&D ). Thank you for your beautiful dissection of this topic! I love when my players are deeply emotionally invested in their characters, in the people of my world, and in what is happening around them. You have made it so much clearer how to do that. Thank you!
anyway thank you for this video, now I understand what 2019 version lacks in that part, because I have read the book and the 2019 version of the movie just feels really sudden in that scene, unlike in the book I really felt something
Greta Gerwig's version is definitely my favorite adaptation. I've seen plenty of Little Women adaptations for years and read the book because my mom and sister adored it, but every version fell flat. The first time I watched 2019 Little Women, I was starstruck. The characters finally connected. The themes were developed and the arcs were actually consistent and meaningful. It felt like a thousand stories in one. Forever my favorite.
It was really good, but I wouldn't recommend it for somebody unfamiliar with the story because I think they would get confused. It's definitely not a way to introduce the story to someone.
@curtthegamer934 and I would disagree with that. It was the first version that my nine year old sister ever watched and she got it right away. That kid was able to understand color grading and non-chronological storytelling pretty well. I love showing it to new people.
This is really good for directors to study as well. A lot of these comparisons are not just about the writing, but also the acting and directing. With BBC's version the clear winner again.
This is very random but another GREAT example of this writing technique is the scene in The Greatest Showman where Phineas shuts Lettie & the other 'freaks' out of the reception after Jenny sings for the first time in America. Lettie & the other's are SO excited and raving about how amazing Jenny's voice was while trying to enter the room, with Phineas just repeatedly brushing them off & barring them entry. First he says it's too crowded, then he says no-one will pay to see them in his circus before shutting the door in their faces. Throughout the exchange you watch their thrilled & excited expressions gradually fall into sadness, shame and disappointment as it set's in that Phineas is excluding them completely. Just thought it was another really well done example of the Expectation vs. Reality portrayed in on-screen emotion.
Like all feedback should be, you do an excellent job showing us why expectation vs. reality is a necessary tool to keep in the writing toolbox when writing for emotional impact. I watched the 1994 version of Little Women, and nothing beats that one for me. Amy's character is portrayed well in all three versions, and I can relate to them as an older sister and a mother. I love how writing and performance go hand in hand but can make all the difference in how the audience relates to the character. Reading the comments and the conversation that brings out an audience's opinion and feedback from their perspective helps a writer so much, as reaching her readers profoundly is essential to the writing process. The actresses in the 1994 film were phenomenal. I haven't seen the BBC or the 2019 versions, but I will dive into both after seeing these clips. I love the story, and that scene is so intense that it gets me every time. Am I the only one who felt both of these versions emotionally, just in a different way individually? I've been trying to find the missing piece to the puzzle that helps to write emotion well, and this video found me at just the right time. "Expectation vs. Reality" will forever be a note in my journal I have titled "The Craft," which I skim through every time I sit down to outline, plot, free-write, etc. Thank you for another great topic!
I personally prefer Gerwig's versuon of the scene. But I haven't watched the BBC movie, so I'm going entirely based on this clip you showed with the commentary. Maybe I will feel differently if I watch the movie.
Was just reading back one of my first drafts and noticed that something was wrong through out some of my scenes. But I couldn't explain what was wrong. You just explained what it was. Thank you!
As an amateur musician now writing my 2nd novel, it really hit me. A friend once called Baroque chamber music sewing machine music as it is often relentlessly even in pace and dynamics. An inauthentic but pleasing way would be to vary the pacing. Have subtle crescendos and decrescendos. Maybe riff on the theme. Never happen among classically trained musicians. Of course.
Hey Abbie, i need some help with writing motivation & ideas for the "plot" of my story, which i will be making into an animated series. So the story is about wolves in a chaotic world breaking apart due to the "shifts" which are linked to the moon, stars & a character named Hiroshin, the world is devided into 4 regions each with their own wolf tribe, one tribe is made up of shaman wolves, another warriors, another one hunters & the 4th tribe consists of an unorganized group of exiled wolves, the main characters are the "luminal bloodline" a group of wolves with magic powers linked to their respective animal star constellations, their mission is to stop the shifts. I can tell you more if you're interested & describe the main characters of course.
also i love amy's guilt and discomfort as she's burning the book, like she knows she shouldn't be doing this, and she isn't quite sure she is, that walk down the stairs as she's holding the manuscript is fantastic, and her bitter bitter expression as she opens the fire, like damn that is some good film making
I loved this! The way you gave the examples was so well done and I could TOTALLY sense which one carried the emotional dynamics better! You really are a brilliant writer-- all of your stuff is gold and you are the reason I am writing my first novel!
It's so refreshing to see love for the BBC version. I will always have a deep love for the musical Little Women, but that is more centered around Jo's character because of the shorter run time. So the musical is my story of Jo's coming of age andmaturity, BBC version is the full story of the entire family.
I definitely feel like the BBC version is more captivating. As a writer I strive to slow down more and make these conflicts stretch out even more. I would love to see a video on how Quinten Tarantino stretches out tension and suspension the way he does. Great analysis by the way 👍
you perfectly described how to execute ideas, scenes, stories, in a more interesting way. in other words how to show something. reminds me of dan harmons story circle and kishotenketsu. it constantly subverts expectation. but i feel like theres also an exception to this like when you over do it the story looses its meaning theme wise. so its kind of tricky.
What's your favorite version of Little Women and why? Comment below and join the discussion! ✍🏼
I was JUST reading Little Women!!
I think I still prefer the Greta Gerwig version. I completely agree with the principles and concepts you outlined. However, the medium of film gives us an additional variable: the actors themselves.
The BBC version definitely acted BIGGER, but it's a bit over-acting, and the Gerwig version, being a little more grounded, is easier to watch because the acting is so great that it pulls me into the scene more.
However, in a novel, you don't have actors; you have the imagination, so I completely agree this is the way to go for writing overall.
I definitely find the 1994 version with Winona Ryder as Jo to be the most emotionally engaging, aesthetically pleasing, and well casted of all the versions I've seen thus far. I rewatch it every year and the scene where Jo's book is burned and her reaction is far more visceral than both the options in this video. That said, I do also love the BBC version :)
Ronan and Pugh are just so good. And Scanlen as Beth. But Emily Watson (in the BBC version) always elevates a film. Both versions are both great. And though it was hard to think of Pugh that young because she has such a mature voice, she somehow pulls it off. Ronan and Pugh are just so darn good overall.
By the way, I agree with your whole video though. :) The BBC version handles that scene better.
Definitely the Winona Ryder version!
That’s right burning your book never works.
This
😂😂😂
Lol that’s what I thought too
Burning other peoples books....Amy wasn't a writer. Amy burnt jo's book
Sometimes it does though 😂
I absolutely love this! It also serves to show just how close sisters are, because she knew PRECISELY how to hurt her sister, there was no scheming, no contemplation, she went for the SOUL.
Ooh, good point.
The second one is more cinematic but as a girl with sisters the first one is 100% how it would have gone down.
100% agreed
🌸 I’m sorry but I agree with video for writing
First one was too flat & awfully boring whereas the second one captured my attention and moved me with the characters like I was there
My mom had 8 sisters & they didn’t fight, neither physically or verbally
I have zero sisters & 2 brothers and I am the fighter lol
Life isn’t always like a firecracker but when you write it has to take the audience on a journey
lol
@sunitafisher4758
Yeah, that's what I was saying. The second version works better in movie format but the first one is more realistic.
A mix of the two would be great. The first one really feels like siblings fighting. Which often does go from 0 to 100 due to past resentment. The build up in the second one was great but the fight part seemed lack luster, she didn’t feel or act mad enough to me.
Right after seeing her burnt paper it should’ve been one look in her sisters direction and then jumped her immediately like the first scene.
The 1994 version of the story also has a really cool juxtaposition of Jo's anger and Amy's regret, which I think is much more realistic and relatable. How often do we do something in anger only to regret it in the aftermath? It also helps that Kirsten Dunst was an actual child playing Amy.
I absolutely love the Winona Ryder version!
I drew all over my sisters artwork once because I was angry and jealous
The 1994 version is far superior in my opinion. I wish more people did reviews/analysis of it.
agreed. having one actress play both younger and older amy does such a disservice to the story, this scene in particular. i literally cannot take the 2019 version seriously because florence pugh looks older than saoirse ronan to me
I have to agree. Furthermore, at the risk of putting myself in the crosshairs, I’ve only seen one version of Little Women, one time and it was the 1994 version with Winona Rider. It was years ago and to be honest, this kind of story is not my thing.
I have to say that on a scale of more likely realism, burning a book that someone you love has been writing - when you know how much it will hurt them - should be in reaction to something more egregious than big sister telling little sister she can’t go out for the evening with her - even if she’s a jerk about it.
This whole reaction seems off to me unless there is a deeper antagonistic dynamic going on between those two sisters that I’m not remembering in the story?
And yes, some regret should have been present to make the scene more real…as most sisters who do have good relationships would be remorseful for taking such a drastic form of revenge. Cuz there definitely was no back up draft on a thumb drive or on the cloud 😂😂
That said, Abbie’s lesson was clearly played out in the writing and the performances. There is a big difference between the two versions emotional roller coaster-wise. My problem is with the concept and context of the scene and not with A.E.’s point. ☺️
Notice in the BBC version that there are many more pages, and larger pages of the manuscript, giving even more magnitude to Amy’s crime.
Maybe it’s an unpopular opinion, but although the 2019 version isn’t as cinematic and dynamic from a narrative perspective, it kinda feels raw and ugly, like how siblings *would* fight. I’ve got an older and a younger sibling, and that scene felt pretty real for me. A lot of the time, the emotion is festering underneath and explodes in a matter of seconds. Maybe the direction could have been better to convey that, but idk something about that scene just hit for me.
Yes, yes! As a little sister, Amy was exactly me. I WANTED to feel dramatic and serious and vindictive. Amy very obviously is frustrated at being constantly dismissed by Jo, and does something that throwing a tantrum can't do. It's a lot more ugly, and even when the older sibling gets angry and the younger is forced to apologise, most times they feel little regret, that their actions were justified.
The responsibility is on the eldest to forgive, and less for the younger to apologise, because the younger can't truly grasp the entirety of what they've done on a personal level. And that's just sibling life. Petty disagreements and forced apologies and cat fights and sometimes, learning and feeling very little. Gerwig captured that far more realistically than either this abc version or the 1990s version.
Sometimes, sibling spats aren't as deep for one party than they are another. We don't need Amy showing a deep guilt, we don't big swelling scores or drawn out monologues or varied cuts. Because they're still sisters at the end of the day, and in the end they will all get on with life, just as the Marches do.
*Also want to point out, in the scene before the confrontation between Jo and Amy, Jo is being specifically and purposefully spiteful to Amy, shutting her down cruelly and on purpose, to elicit further reaction from Amy, so she has more reason to shut her down, the cycle continues. Jo felt it was her right in that moment for Amy to be upset and angry and to miss out on an event she was going to, because that is what big sisters commonly feel like. Sometimes we want to spite our siblings, especially when we're in a crabby mood, or the sibling has already been annoying beforehand. Jo understood what Amy was feeling, but she didn't care that she was. When Jo asked Amy if she had the book and Amy started gloating in her lie, she knew and was furious. Sibling spats like this, there is nothing else to do but claw each other's eyes out.
But a good story is not a beat-for-beat about how reality really happens. That's why people crave story more than security tape footage.
@@melindawolfUS fair point. I do love dramaticized things, in fact my favorite genre in fantasy, where everything's at least a little unrealistic. I just really liked that scene I guess, and there's others who also enjoyed it. I wasn't trying to say that the point she makes in this video is wrong-- in fact I agree with her that emotional dynamics are important--I was just saying that there was something that ended up being effective for me, and I wanted to contribute to the discussion. Apologies if I came off as disagreeing or ignoring her points 😅
In the book, Amy and Jo squabble in other parts in a way that isn't so intense. The importance of this scene is that this fight went beyond normal sibling bickering. They actually hurt each other this time, and struggle with forgiveness.
As an actress and writer I can argue that the actors' choices impacted a lot of the emotional dynamic in both scenes. I think in the adaptation if some of the actors choices were different it could've changed the emotional dynamic massively even with the limited dialogue. Also the actors choices and the change in atmosphere in the BBC version is what gave it more emotion.
That's what I believe. This has more to do with the acting choices then the writing.
Directing also plays a role in the results here. Gerwig could've instructed the actors to crescendo and to have differing emotions, differing discoveries develop through their acting. That's part of a directors job, to help actors find the true character and emotion and release it.
@@beebuzz959 Honestly I think Gerwig’s priorities for the 2019 adaption were to elevate the realism of the novel (and thusly it’s quiet feminist themes). The rhythm of her story, despite being an achronological reworking of the narrative, flits back and forth through the chapters of these women’s adolescence as though we are merely sitting in the room with them. The sequence of scenes thusly begins as though we understand the context behind it and the thoughts going through the girls heads already. Pugh isn’t playing a woman who communicates herself and makes good choices, she’s playing a young Amy, and her emotions therefore move at a fast, realistic pace, and her motives for the scene come out messy and childish. Jo is no different in this regard. And as a sister myself, Ronan and Watson couldn’t possibly be more true to their role of older sisters, one scathing and uncompromising to her little sibling at all costs, and one nurturing and wise as she balances them both. It was like being seen when Jo just flung herself at Amy, because the audience doesn’t need to be coddled; They know Jo was silently winding up a shot from the moment she looked up from the drawer, even without raising her voice. The cuts still build tension and the angle of Gerwig’s vision prevails: That of authentic, messy, realistic sisters wrought with fiery agency and searing ties to one another.
For example, watch the BBC version. While I’m a believer in theatre > film, this acting style, which is being utilized, does nothing to impart a sense of duplicity in the viewer. I get the impression that the actors are moving line to line, almost third circle, representing their characters emotions by directly communicating them with the audience and thusly doing just that: acting. I don’t see sisters, I see blocking and a script and players on a stage. They speak exposition, and they hand hold the audience through the emotional journey as if we didn’t ask to be here. And for that I think Gerwig’s concept for the framing of Little Women (2019) wins over and over again.
@@KekerikiGreen I saw Gerwig's version (
not the BBC one), and though I appreciate how she personalized it more to how Jo probably was, the film overall wasn't that great. I've seen much better versions that were much more emotional.
Especially having studied directing, and having done some myself, I find Gerwig failed in assisting the actors to help the film be what it deserved to be. I think you can bring out the pro-feminist qualities and also create a moving picture. If you can't do that, you've failed at half of it. I find her version only mediocre in that regard. I didn't cry. I didn't really even care if the characters got what they wanted either. She had an amazing opportunity, and she could've done so much better with it.
@@beebuzz959 Fair enough. I deeply understand Jo’s arc myself but that honestly probably comes from a deep kinship with Ronan’s portrayal of the character. I find the focus of the 2019 films attention in that regard to be really interesting, the way it sorts the beats of the film into an order that makes you consider scenes as having different importance to the story than before (as long as we follow traditional story beats here). I think the way she’s able to draw parallels and knit scenes that were far apart together forces you to admire things in a different light, or assemble questions in your mind that later get answered thanks to who she chooses to show and where. Consider if she told the tale flat, like before. Her directing may then seem strange. But take Beth’s death, for example-putting her revealed to be okay next to her revealed to be dead in the exact same shot sequence and blocking, only with different visual tones? Devastating. For me, I wouldn’t have cried had she done it the typical way. But instead, her ideas revive the overdone material. That’s just my opinion though. It might be worth a focussed rewatch!
EDIT: Ironically, this channel does a great job at outlining the scientific structure of a good story. The three acts, the dopamine cycle of a reader, etc. With all these in mind, it explains how Little Women 2019 simply just works as a film and how, when you’re adapting anything, what you’re doing is arguing to the audience what about it was important in the first place-like for example, breaking the fourth wall at the end of your film by cutting between a character agreeing to marry off her female protagonist, and herself running off with some unimportant man.
I agree that the BBC version of this scene is superior. One of the most effective reasons for me is that it never enters into Jo's mind that the book is in danger. She has left it trustingly in the attic, not attempted like Gerwig's Jo to hide it away. Until she sees the charred papers in the housekeeper's hand, BBC Jo could not have fathomed this event and so the betrayal is that much more grievous to her. This is similar to BBC's Amy having an expectation of being included in the theater night but then the unthinkable happening when Jo not only says she can't come but even argues against the reasonable solution provided by Meg. Jo's expectation of safety for her book demonstrates a higher level of betrayal, just as Amy's expectation of inclusion makes the rejection that much more painful. The BBC version also gives the viewer more opportunity to be surprised, as we don't see that Jo is fearful of her manuscript being destroyed. We don't even see the book in this scene until we observe Amy contemplating it in the attic. The hesitancy that Amy exhibits at that moment shows that she knows what she is about to do is clearly wrong, especially because her sister would never imagine it happening. Gerwig's version takes away the opportunity for the viewer to be shocked by Amy's actions because it's something that has already been put into our minds as a possibility when we saw Jo hiding the book.
That
The Gerwig version seems to be more realistic in showcasing a fight between sisters than the BBC one though. This is a main focus in a lot of Gerwig’s work. She’s not trying to make a scene that perfectly builds, she’s trying to connect with the viewers who have experienced this. Girls with siblings (especially female siblings) will find a lot of themselves within this movie. Emotions are crazy and unpredictable during these type of fights. Obviously, this isn’t broad appeal, but most of her work is meant to connect to girls and their experiences.
In my opinion, I would've written Amy to feel a lot more regretful/sheepish after her sister came back home with the candy bar, like that "uh oh" moment where she realizes she stepped way out of line.
Yes, me too. But maybe this is correct for Amy's character?
Nah...Amy's character is such that if she doesn't get what she wants RIGHT NOW, it doesn't matter that she gets a gift or will get to see the play later.
I find this framing really helpful. Catherine Nichols wrote an essay for Jezebel a few years back - "One Weird Trick That Will Make Your Writing Addictive" - in which she argues that good storytelling is like a game of billiards, with the decisions and feelings of each character ricocheting off that of others. She maintains that women are typically better at this emotionally dynamic, up-and-down method of telling stories because they tend to be more attuned to the subtleties of social behavior. That essay changed my whole approach to writing but I've never seen anyone else frame it in those terms, until now.
But Gerwig is a women...
My wife is a published author and I beta read all of her stuff. She's a wonderful writer and I thoroughly enjoy her stories. What you just said about women writing the emotional dynamics and all the ups and downs is certainly evident in her storytelling and is one of the things I enjoy about her writing. Also, that unexpected thing that Abbie talks about is another element I enjoy. I feel very fortunate to have a spouse who has written and published several books available to help me with my own stories. And now, I have this UA-cam channel too. 😁
The second clip brought me to tears. The sisterly love and conflict, the surprise, the subtle shifts in Amy's shame and smugness, are all incredible.
I'm so impressed by this. I've never seen the 2017 version, but I have seen the 1990s version and I've seen the Greta Gerwig one, and I hated it compared to the one made in the 90s.
Little Women is my favorite book. And the 2019 version was my favorite but I will have go watch the BBC Version, thanks for all your help. I am now on my second book.
Abbie, you have articulated something that I have felt and been frustrated with in a bad script vs. a good script for YEARS! Thank you for breaking this down and really analyzing it. Excellent video!
A few thoughts to add to your excellent advice, Abbie.
While writing my book, I ran into a dilemma early on, where I needed to portray strong emotional reactions; my first attempts resulted in dastardly "purple prose." Researching this further, I realized British films always evoked strong emotions...and I discovered why; they intentionally understate, creating a vast chasm between what is happening vs. what one is feeling. For me, this is the right way to go.
Further thoughts: Years back, I attended a writing class given by Robert McKee, author of the book, Story. He spoke of "emotional charges" which are found within scenes. In his estimation--and I've found this to be valid, if there is no change in emotional charge within a scene, there is no scene.
He further breaks down scenes into "beats." He was referring to dialogue, whereby each character's response is likened to a beat, and each beat, back and forth between characters, results in that change in emotional charge.
Thank you, Abbie, for tutoring me through your videos. I have a long way to go, but the journey is worth it.
I have to disagree a little...the 2019 fight in my opinion was realistic to people who have sisters or brothers. And sometimes confrontation or fights are so fast and full of anger that doesn't let you to have a "careful and thinking" way of being. I actually believe that the 2019 were sisters instead of the other versions because of the way they speak to each other and the fight was very realistic to people who actually had confrontation with siblings, even tho I have to say that the fight was a little unrealistic because siblings don't have problem tearing you apart. That's why the other version is even less realistic cause the "talk" and the fight is almost polite and classy...real siblings fight don't look like that, they supposed to look childish and even clumsy....that's why 2019 catch me.
I think it is important, also, to remember the difference in the way siblings would communicate in times past versus the way they communicate now. I see a great deal of difference in how my brother and I communicated and how my grandchildren communicate.
Thanks for explaining what I was thinking but better
I agree that it may be closer to realism, but in my opinion, that doesn’t necessarily mean it is as effective in terms of writing. One of the worst things that you can do in a novel is focus on ‘realism’ rather than good writing.
Good writing is interesting and compelling precisely because it isn’t what people experience every day. Think about talking to many self-absorbed people - your mind starts wandering halfway through their stories about their mundane inter office politics. The only way to make it interesting is if the main character has unique, biting, sassy, retorts, which isn’t a ’realistic,’ everyday response.
If you fill half a page with dialogue like, “hello - how are you - fine - how are things - oh, been busy…” people will throw your story down.
If James Bond got shot just as much as he shot others, if he didn’t have flings with women because he was busy on a mission, and if he didn’t have snazzy taglines, people wouldn’t be as invested in the story.
And in most cases, watching normal siblings fight is uncomfortable, makes the siblings look bad, and it’s boring. It’s usually petty, minor, and not worth spending time on. Theres a lot of parents out there who just want to screech, “oh, shut up already!”
I would argue that even books that are based on real life and real people are based on people who do things that are in no way ordinary. People who led a movement that changed the world, something most people wouldn’t have the courage to do. Even then, it’s presented with faster pacing and extremely selective bits of high-tension dialogue.
The recent film, “The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare,” is based on true events. I’m not calling it a perfect film, but it captures and keeps the attention because the scenarios are insane, and so are the characters. If you met the main character in real life, walking into your office and just taking stuff, you likely wouldn’t like them very much; but on the screen, that devil-may-care attitude is captivating. Why?
Because we often admire and love to watch characters who do things that we would never have the guts to do. If you acted that way in real life, you would be socially ostracized. People would be tired of it. But people love to think of an imagined life where they could act that way. Not a realistic life that reflects how most people act - trapped by their fears and limiting beliefs.
@@winspiff I think you hit it well, here. Good writing and "realism" are not the same thing--more, "realism" is not really what writing or any art is really out to evoke. Art is out to evoke emotions, full stop. Reality is not a contrivance while art is. Art alludes to reality; it's not capable of, nor is it its intention to, re-create it. Emotions are internal; art has no choice but to hit those emotions by externalizing them for the audience. That takes artifice. As I've noted here, the notion that "realism" is preferred bespeaks an observer of art, not an artist. Participants will know what I'm talking about, here.
Honestly, I don’t see the problem, that’s how sibling fights go, no matter how big or small the problem is. This is the most accurate fight scene I’ve ever scene in television. And I think it didn’t have to be emotional to work, because it’s actually relatable.
Amazing as always, and I totally see the point for story telling. However, objectively, not as an author, I do appreciate Greta’s version as it feels very realistic of how sister dynamics play out. Having sisters myself I can honestly testify that there are days where our moods do not build up and change a whole ton in a scene because we are already at odds with each other, frustrated and defensive against the whiny.
Exactly. I certainly do remember that we could just fly at each other without any real buildup. (Funnily and on a related note, sometimes because she stole one of my books and handled it like her own books; just left it lying around somewhere where it was at great danger of water damage. At times because she read through my diary and even made notes on the side...) But by gosh, that slap in the other version by the older sister felt so thrilling. I felt that in my older sister soul. I like her well enough now, but might still be harboring some resentment over the fact that when I flew off the handle people in the family immediately backed her up, but when she did, well, I was the older, I was supposed to just... Bear with it. Plus, why wasn't I wiser and prevent her getting agitated which led to her harassing/hitting ME? But god save my soul if I dared retaliate. (Not even a year. Not even a year of age difference.)
While I can see the differences between the scenes, I didn't FEEL the difference OP was describing... until the gift came out, but I don't see how the characters actions leading up to that changed that. Maybe giving a definition for what "emotional dynamic change" means would have helped? I mean... there are changes in the emotions and dynamics in both scenes. Is it just "don't make things happen too suddenly"? Because I feel like that could have been said easier in a lot less time.
This might be an unpopular opinion but i still prefer the 1994 version of this scene better to a degree (and this is just my opinion judging by those scenes alone, not the entire film):
In the 1994 ver, we see amy being whiney and it kinda gives the impression of her being childish just because she didn't get invited to see the play, it escalates to her being so angry she yelled at joe and tried to throw something at her. It shows she is currently very angry and as a response to that anger she burns joe's book, it makes sense on why she did it. She wasn't thinking clearly and was blinded by anger. It also makes even more sense that, since it was established that she can act childish previously, it makes sense as to why she chose to burn her sisters book despite it being over something small as not getting invited to a play. In her mind she doesn't care how much that book means to joe, she just want to make her suffer effectively (it showing the childishness that was shown previously). Her thought process makes sense on why she did it.
When joe comes back, she immediatelly suspects amy, which in my opinion is kinda shows how much she knows her sister, no evidence, no nothing, just suspects her cause she knew her sister and how she is. Misguided yes, but realistic. Then they went on a back and fourth "no, i didn't", "yes, you did", "no, i didn't", "yes, you did" then BAM attacks her out of nowhere out of just the assuption her sister took her book and to me it's way more realistic on how siblings behave (imo) and how most sibling spats are, then when both are high on anger and attacking each other amy stops lying and reveals that she did burn joe's book, when before she denied being rensponsible.
In the BBC version, i do agree in the whole set up of her being exited then dissapointed that she's not allowed to go that makes the situation have more impact and make us care about it more, but after that she's genuinely upset about not being invited then swore she would make her sister suffer acting like this was the worst thing that could've happened when it's just about not being invited and it's not the angry type of upset when ur judment is clouded and you say mean words that are driven by anger, it's just looks like just being upset (imo, based on the actors face) and it's a little off putting to me cause it wasn't established that she could be this way from the scene. Whereas the other one it is established she could be childish.
And then when she tries to burn the book, her movement's are slow and her expression is ...upset but kindof guilty? The problem to me is that while the other scene she's clearly burning the book cause she's misguided by anger (you can see her doing things like closing the drawer abruptly, putting the first page quickly in the fire, clearly showing she's still driven by anger) while in the BBC one, The slowness gives the impression she's thinking through her actions or at least reluctant but still being upset. Especially in the burning scene, near the end of the burning she doesn't look that upset but she still continues to burn the book and it gives me the impression that she knows what she's doing is wrong deep down but she still does it. Over not being invited. It makes her look more petty, and it makes what she did worse. Though i have to agree that the filmaking is better in the BBC. The flames shining on her face contrasted by the dull background, the flip-flopping between the play and joe being happy to amy gloomily burning joe's book. 10/10 😍👏
Then when joe comes back, and in this version she gives her a gift and apologizes for what she did wrong even saying she'll invite her next week but amy is still bitter about not being invited *that day* . Not even looking a bit guilty after she got something nice instead from her sister. Then when the book was revealed to be burnt she looked resentful and not even a bit guilty even though *again* her sister did something nice to her. Then she just admits that she was the one who burnt her book and acts like it was a big deal that she was wronged and this was why she had to make her sister suffer. It makes her seem more sinister just to do this over a small thing. Also she just straight up says she's the one who did it just because joe asked, while in the 1994 version she denies doing it at first but only snapping and revealing the truth after joe attacked her. The 1994 made sense on why she revealed the truth and also it's just SO realistic when the other sibling just denies they did anything wrong until pushed hard enough (figuratively), while the other scene had no reason to other than to make her suffer in her face i guess.
But what i think they did do well to me is because the scene made it seem like what amy did was even worse, the payoff of joe's reaction and meg's words after the fight was way more statisfiying and i do agree that it does make the scene more...dramatic. even if the context does make me think that everybody is making such a big deal out of all of this despite it just being a small thing in retrospect (except the book burning, i get why it's a big deal to joe and her reaction is understandable)
While on the other scene it felt more like a misguided sisterly spat, more fitting to the problem at hand.
Also this is a side rant but i just love how there are just more little details in the 1994 ver that makes the siblings feel real. Them talking over eachother, responding fast, getting emotional over little things, whining, the other being so done, meg's reaction seeing amy throwing something over being upset is more playful, little quips like:
"Beth has her piano, and i'm so lonely 😔"
"I can teach you chords 😮"
"I don't want chords, i want to go 😒"
It just makes me feel : ❤❤❤
So basicly:
- the 1994 felt more realistic and the motivations make more sense
- the BBC one had better tension and filming, but the motivations make less sense (or make amy look worse imo)
I think putting them together would make it perfect:
Amy has the expectation to go, but then denied, then got her hopes up again, then denied, kinda whines a bit to meg, then denied firmly by joe, (and in here basicly the tone goes slowly from casual to getting serious and the climaks of it being joe's firm denial) then amy snapping angrily and yelling at joe abt making her suffer and running to her room.
We get the flip-flopping like in the BBC but this time everytime we cut to amy her movement's feel angered, fast, and her face being clearly upset and angry.
Then when they come back, things go the same as the BBC, joe's in a better mood, she apologizes, gives amy a present, but this time amy is shocked she got a present from joe, and has a tinge of guilt on her face remembering what she did. We get the reveal the book was burnt from the lady, joe's upset, suspects amy, amy denies it, but joe gets more angry at amy while not beliving her, because of this amy's guilt just dissapears and replaced by anger, as they get more angry amy snaps and tells the truth while yelling, then ensue the fight and aftermath like in the BBC, only this time take out meg's words about "you will not find comfort with me"
And there u go :D
But this is all just my opinion 😅
1994? Are you comparing the BBC series (2017) to the 1994 movie starring Winona Ryder, Kirsten Dunst and Susan Sarandon? Or did you mistakenly write 1994 when you meant 2019 which is the Gerwig version? And by the way, it’s Jo which is short for Josephine, not Joe which is short for Joseph.
That new intro and format for this type of video is FANTASTIC!!
I had my first introduction to Little Women with the Greta Gerwig version and didn't think it was worth all the hype. I actually teared up at the clip of the BBC version, so I'm going to have to give that one a try and maybe find a new favorite!
Then you should try the 1994 one! That one is my personal favorite!!
while I definitely agree with the differences you pointed out, being a screenwriter, I find that features are vitally different from miniseries in screen time. bbc had literally more time (even if not much more) to develop certain scenes and sequences, and that is crucial when creating better dynamics. great work though!
The BBC version is a much better ride. I love how you compared the dynamic range to music. That drove it home for me. Thanks, Abbie! Just what I needed to hear and see today.
Absolutely brilliant to bring sound into conveying emotions. You're spot on! Sound is the first sense that gets "plugged in" so to speak. We start hearing before we're born, so it's a very primal way for us to navigate the world. The "circle of talent" for films fully encompasses everything from sound design (such as folly), voice overs, music, etc. All of it goes into this subtle art of pushing emotions in audiences.
For instance, the sound of alarms blaring, footsteps running across metal platforms, the creaks and moans of a submarine, the hisses of air in the background, incoherent barking of orders are all done in service to make you feel anxious. The sound alone gives us the impression the sub is in trouble and our tension is heightened by nature of the camera placing us in what we think is a sinking ship. Without those extra sounds, the story doesn't land with the same gravitas.
The absence of sound can also be used strategically. Either total silence or being particular about the types of sound. Studio Ghibli films use this technique, but so do non-animated films like Saving Private Ryan. Specifically, the Storm of Beaches of Normandy scene where we even get ringing in our ears and no music and other sounds get muted. This puts us in the perspective of the soldiers themselves and becomes emotionally resonating, something that really sinks in after the battle when the music finally does come in.
Great video :DDD
This was good and gives me some ideas for my rewrite. The issue I have with Abby's videos is that she uses movies and TV shows for examples rather than showing good writing vs bad writing. If you have issues with dialog, how do you learn to write good dialog from a movie where emotions are communicated visually? Reading and watching are worlds apart and I wish she would focus more on how to create a written scene with this kind of impact.
Try the Quotidian Writer.
No, they're on the same world. Dialogue is dialogue. If reading your dialogue feels different from hearing it, you're doing something wrong.
I loved the analogy with Dynamic Change, the use of emojis for emotional changes and and the scientific explanation in the end.
The 1994 version is my favourite the 90s cinematography always makes me feel warm and homely, and the acting is very heartfelt, and actually having amy be a child makes her actions more forgivable, though that version does make adult Amy very tactless around jo, whereas she got much better and less selfish as an adult in the book good wives there is an entire chapter dedicated to showing Amys selfless, gracious and kind actions when slighted by her rich snobby neighbours that is the reason her aunt invites her to Europe instead of jo.
one of the most important rules as writer. The results of a characters actions MUST exceed their expectations to be good. But SHOULD exceed the audiences, to be great.
Why do these always premiere when I’m busy doing something?? 😭😭 so excited to watch it tomorrow night tho
That's alright. I had to stop and rewind about 20 times to make sure I got all the good points.
I have quite a few comments on your assessment, some thoughts of my own (as the oldest of three girls, all homeschooled, ages 17, (almost) 15, and 9). This is long. I apologize. I just wanted to fully analyze the video here (can you tell I'm in the middle of a college-level comp class???)
The emotional buildup of Gretta's version isn't as good, I will agree. And the BBC argument, especially the latter half, really does strike a chord with the viewer. It puts you on edge emotionally. The first is definitely too fast paced. But I like how the first half of the argument is presented in Greta Gerwig's interpretation. It's been forever since I read the book, so I'm not going to compare it to canon writing.
On the topic of Amy being a whiny brat:
My sisters fight all the time. Even before they are speaking, they are annoyed with each other over something. (They have their good moments and more neutral moments, but oftentimes the older (14) is bothered by something the younger (9) is doing, and the younger gets defensive and annoyed at being bossed around.
As we know from the story, Jo and Amy's prior relationship up to this point hasn't been shown to be fantastic. They're sisters, meaning they're on each other's nerves 24/7. As a result, Amy WON'T expect for Jo to say yes to see the show, therefor she goes to Meg. (Note that even Meg is wanting to say yes, to appease Amy, but she's not fighting on either side.) I can confirm that this is true for my family too. I get along better with my sisters than they do with each other.
The concept of this scene, in theory, is actually really good, I think. BUT, the pacing isn't great. Things feel too rushed. There are no pauses. There is no nuisance or subtlety in emotions. As a result, without that "push and pull" of emotions, there is no breathing space. There is no tenseness.
I feel like Greta's version is more realistic. As such, it doesn't pack that punch that BBC holds. We've seen this argument a million times between our own siblings. It's nothing new.
(Also might I mention, I love Beth's statement of, "I can teach you chords on piano". Such a peacekeeper. And how Amy bites back in anger. When the younger sibling is so angry that they get mad at everyone. Again, an experience I'm familiar with.)
The second part escalates too quickly. It's no surprise that Jo assumes the worst, but I feel like her reaction feels forced (decent down the stairs with little to no expression on her face). Her range of emotions isn't as visible. It's very subdued at first. But I DO like the way Amy's character was handled. Though she isn't smug about burning the book, Amy is still bitter. She's still frustrated that things didn't go her way, and that sours the mood of the rest of the family.
The BBC version feels a bit more "rose tinted" to begin with. Amy seems like a completely different character, more optimistic and happy. Jo still doesn't want her to tag along, but she's using more reasoning for it. I feel like this version fails at really capturing Jo and Amy's sibling-hate relationship at the beginning, which is why I prefer Gretta's version (in this case).
It's less emotion-packed to begin with, but it DOES set up the second half better because Amy so deeply wants to join in. She seems less like an annoying younger sister, which is why Jo's argument is less of "I don't want you to tag along" and more "you can't tag along". Which also makes Amy's comment of "I hate you" feel more dramatic and unwarranted. It doesn't feel like sibling rivalry as much so, and it seems like Jo would have let Amy join along if complications hadn't been there to begin with, such as the seating issue. (There's something about, "you annoy me, go away, don't join me to the movies" that feels so familiar to arguments at my house, so I'm a bit biased in preferring it.)
BBC's approach to the second half is definitely better. Jo's realization of what Amy did, to Amy's reaction and shock at Jo being reasonable when she first got home (giving her the chocolates). I don't think that the plot itself (motivations of characters specifically) is better or worse necessarily. Jo in Gretta's version still feels annoyed with Amy's presence, and Amy in Gretta's version still feels like she's in the right. Jo in BBC's version feels like she's already grown from the experience, or at least, cooled off a lot. And Amy in BBC's version is having to process that, while also STILL justifying herself and making herself the victim (so burning the book isn't wrong).
Both sides are incredibly plausible in real life. Two different resolutions to arguments. (Jo moving on and forgiving vs Jo returning home and her mood souring as she sees Amy again.) I don't like how Amy takes responsibility RIGHT AWAY for burning the papers. I understand she's proud of herself, but I would like to have seen a little conflict of guilt, like "oh, Jo's sorry and is trying to make up, but I burnt her book" and then with Meg appeasing her, that further guilt that "oh, I got what I wanted, but also I needlessly punished Jo". Emotionally, that could have been fun to see play out. (Granted, the scene might go on for too long. Guess that's what fanfiction's for...)
I like the sort of denial Amy has towards burning the book and Jo accusing her in Gretta's version, as it really shows that they both see the worst in each other. But I do feel that the build-up to that argument could have been better handled.
That being said, this is my analysis. I like the plot of Gretta's version better, but I like the dialogue, pacing, and acting of the BBC's version. A mix of both would have been nice. But I would happily watch both versions. Each interpretation of the scene is unique and feels like a different story, in a way.
Additional note: arguments could look like both examples. My sister's do have other issues regarding handling emotions well (ie. ADHD). Different characters will handle conflict differently, so you must consider their range of emotions, their past experiences with other characters, and how they would most likely react to a situation not going their way.
On any other other channel you would have been “ticketed” by the YT Comment Length Patrol.
Only on Abbie’s Emmons’ channel would a comment this long be thumbs upped - and not be subjected to worthless negativity about the length and nothing about the content.
This is just another reason why Abbie’s channel and the community she has built is so awesome!
I actually somewhat disagree with your assessment that the action and reaction in this scene was reasonable and realistic. My sister is seven years older than I am. I never had any real expectation of being invited to go out with her for the evening when she was going out with friends. Nor did I ever ask to. So this scene hits me differently.
That said, I still enjoyed reading your comment and found your perspective all the more interesting because it’s different than mine.
That’s what story does - bring out the various perspectives 😄
No, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I don't have sisters but have a younger brother and the "made-up-mind before actual fight" is true.
Of course, there's the fact that BBC's holds the younger sibling's card of using excitement and "pretty please" in hopes of winning a mostly lost argument. Her switch to betrayed is natural for a spoiled child's tantrum when she doesn't get what she wants and the smirk in the fight after they return and gift her the tickets feels like a "Well… you fixed your mistake too late, you must accept the consequences of crossing me. I'll take the tickets anyway". Whilst Joe is trying to make amends and appease her just to find "the brat" has ruined her work for "a play she's already bought her tickets for" and is not even a little sorry.
Greta's version has a whiny girl using the younger sibling card of annoying and whining until they give in, but also doesn't work on Joe, which end up switching the energetic trial to frustrated anger and throwing an object. In this version there's no "fix it" amend from Joe and her finding out the book is missing. When she doesn't find her work there's a time of reaction, we don't get to spend with her, the obvious deduction of Amy taking it. Her passive-aggressive short fuse was perfect, is the boiling anger she was holding in upstairs and when descending to the main floor just to be lit by Amy's revelation. As a sibling the "Has anyone seen my book?" would've been better as a "Where is my book, Amy?", because it doesn't play and means business and suits the lashing out better.
In the end, I like both because they look like situations in their lives, maybe one day Amy tries one card or the other, in any way stays in character. Same for Joe, in the first one she has a reactive response to the sudden scorched paper of her novel and lashing out, in contrary the second one presents an active response to not finding her book and deciding to confront Amy.
Needless to say, I have no empathy towards Amy in any case, but I wouldn't have hit her. I would've stopped talking to her altogether, but that's just me. Amy needed real consequences.
@@BeAWritter I would have to disagree with you on the hitting part. In both cases, Amy burned Jo's book out of spite, and in both scenes, it's due to Amy being a brat over not going to some play. The first one is pretty much walking on eggshells to a ticking time bomb; they're pretty much at each other's throats; as it was mentioned in the other analysis, it felt faster, and the characters were stereotyped as big siblings vs younger siblings.
The second one, however, shows that there was a reason for Amy to not go. It wasn't out of spite. It was because they were invited, and if Amy were to tag along, it would become an inconvenience, a fifth wheel in this scenario. The motive was still there for Amy to burn Jo's book, and normally, there are bad feelings on both ends of the spectrum in arguments. Jo felt bad for Amy and was willing to make it up to her, but after she did a nice thing and found out that Amy went the extra mile to burn the book, there was that moment of disbelief before the explosion, and in that moment when you yourself feel that you have been wronged, you don't look the other way. You want to make them know what they did was wrong, and the one slap Amy got is only a fraction of the pain Jo felt. As someone who has been through situations where the feelings I felt were anger and hurt, I know the two outcomes that would commonly happen. Either you let the hurt take control, and you cry, or you feel anger, which comes out like Jo's did.
I'll have to give this a watch to get a better grasp of the whole story, but in this scene, Amy was not in the right for burning Jo's book over a play that they intended on taking her to the following week.
I agree with @@natedeanmaan2
@@BeAWritter I agree with you - but I’ll have to disagree on having no empathy for Amy.
As a younger sibling who developed BPD due to emotional neglect (partially because of my older sister), the anguish I felt from the daily rejection I was submitted to was unbearable. It often got to a point where I would want to do anything to hurt those who hurt me, even if I deeply loved them.
I’d still be deeply remorseful of whatever misdeed I had done in retaliation - but I wouldn’t always show this both in an attempt of self-preservation, and also due to how intense my anger was.
What Amy did was despicable (as an artist myself), but I also deeply empathize with her.
Honestly, as one of four sisters (we share some traits and dynamics with the March sisters too so we relate greatly with them) i felt i could connect more with the scene in Gerwig's adaptation than in the BBC series and even the Winona Ryder adaptation at that. It felt less "writey" if i could phrase it so, less formulaic, because arguments in real life between siblings are disjointed and have no formula. My little sister is Amy personified and have screamed and thrown shoes when she felt wronged, while me and my eldest sisters laughed and waved away her dramatic antics cuz it's old news. My oldest sisters has denied me and the youngest the fun of hanging out with them and their cool social friend group and it really hurt. Amy's spiteful and smug face coupled with Jo's wrath and rage followed by a screaming physical altercations is very real and hits close to home. Both of them were petty and immature, and look the most childish and childlike in behaviour in the Gerwig adaptation imo. The BBC one with their fancy poetic prosey words just throw off the whole naturalism of the relationship between the siblings. Like "did u see what she did to me" and "don't look to me for comfort" felt so rehearsed. Then again, i might also be projecting the experiences i have with my sisters onto the scene whichvalso isn't fair i guess
I agree. I like the concepts in the video, just not the examples. Gerwig's version is more naturalistic; the BBC version feels stilted in comparison, though it's good in its own way.
@@noctaluneYeah, this felt like the wrong scene to reference...
I agree. I am the youngest of two sisters. Gerwigs version felt more real to me. Rarely did my siblings ever give me concrete reasons for not inviting me. It was often in cruel "You aren't allowed" "Your too little" "You would ruin it" sort of ways. It would happen often, you make an arguement even though you know it will be shut down, but are still heart broken and hurt anyways.
I find it more realisitc and less contrived when the emotional swings are more nuanced and don't swing so wildly.
this!!
There is a difference between realistic writing and good writing, Greta's movie is not a great adaptation. Amy in the book is annoying but she is a cute young girl so you sympathise with her, in this adaptation the adult actress does come as more annoying so you don't connect with her being ignored by her older sister.
to be fair you could see Jo in the 2019 version simmering and breaking with anger. It's sudden because they are young girls and they can be brash and yes "passive aggressive". i found it realistic and believable. i do believe you were on point though about how Amy's disappointment wasn't built up properly, since she was acting as though she was going to be denied from the start. the older version did that build up much better
I love seeing this from a writing perspective, as I learned it from the acting perspective. There’s an acting technique called “tactics and actions.” An actor who uses this technique analyzes their script and asks, “What does my character want from the other character in this scene?” Then breaks down their script and assigns “tactics” for their lines (guilt trip, flatter, bribe, comfort, wound, etc). These tactics are how they try to achieve the goal from the other character. Good acting is an actor having a clear goal, using tactics to get what they want from the other character(s), and reacting honestly to the other actor’s tactics against them - often tactic changes are reactions to the other actors’ tactics. So in scripts where the screenwriter or playwright doesn’t include subtext, it’s an actor’s job with the help of the director to create emotional dynamics.
The photographer in me can't unsee how much better your second example is shot in the way that the faces are readable at all times while in the first one everything is just so mushy.
One is more dramatic while the other feels real, it just about preference.
Right?! I didn’t buy into the emotions for the BBC version. This scene just made me hate Amy as a character. The BBC felt like more forced dramatic technique. Greta’s version felt more like a real argument with my sister. What I like about Greta’s version is that it felt like real relationships between sisters. BBC felt like actors acting. Greta’s version felt like sisters living together.
No, it really isn't about "preference." One works, one doesn't. Full stop. More, the Gerwig version really is not "more realistic." It's very mannered and actorly. The BBC version hits emotions far more powerfully and captures therefore the actual feelings that would realistically be felt. Genuine footage of the actual event as might be found in a secret recording would not give any context and might land like Gerwig's but here's the thing--Gerwig gave that context! And it was equally flat. The final conflict depicted was not supported as was the BBC version. But that's how art works--it's an abbreviation and a telegraphing of what would otherwise never be picked up. It works incredibly well on the page--but to just watch? No. Emotions are simply not seen, being internal. So, again, Gerwig's final fight might work to look like the real thing might have, but literally none of the rest would. BBC's laid the groundwork and earned the crescendo. But then, this is all really a master class for actual creatives, not casual fans, so, your mileage not only might but for sure will vary. TLDR; if Gerwig's landed better for you, then you're not in the field. BBC's is instructive for those in the field.
@magnus_mode so many words but the movie version still feels like sibling arguing and the other as a play. And at the end of the day it should be enjoyable for casual watchers
@@magnus_mode i agree, the more realistic portrayal explained by bbc should be modeled after for example of good framing. indeed our subjective tastes could lead us to appreciate gerwig’s but it’s definitely not material as quality to teach in class and that’s why it ultimately falls off.
@@magnus_mode its a movie. What works and what doesn't is subjective by its very nature and you are not going to invalidate someone's opinions with your pretentiousness. Its a matter of preference.
Art of The Story talked about this, he said write out a scene without words - just the emotions you want the character to feel. If the same emotion keeps showing up, it means you're slowing down the pace. He used the scene from A Beautiful Minds dinner to show it.
The Claire Danes portrayal of Beth, when she dies. I was still a kid then and I still have flashbacks, it was so heart wrenching I feel like I have ptsd from watching it. That version was a masterpiece. But I havent seen the BBC one yet though so lets see..
Such an interesting analysis! I had heard from actor interviews that its important to 1) have a build up to a rage for it to feel authentic, as for most people that's how it works
2) choose one moment to cry, otherwise in a movie it'll seem too emotively repetitive.
I think these things apply to writing as well, and it was really helpful to break down the expectation/dynamic range to heartbreaking moments for characters. When I've had to emotionally process hard moments and epiphanies myself, that's more what it felt like.
I think too tragedy and horror moments (points of no return basically) for characters are often quiet but profound, where they internalize some message and come to an irrevocable decision. I've recently been struggling with a similar pivotal scene for two characters going through a similarly charged scene, and your insights and comparison to music was really illuminating! Thank you!
I never noticed this scene's emotional dynamic before. I did watch both versions of BBC's Little Women and Greta Gerwig. Figuring both from this particular scene was interesting and could feel the emotional impact it had. I didn't notice this the first time. So, I many need to watch both for next time to pick up on it. As far as the adaptions to Little Women (which by the way Little Women is my favorite novel and saw all the adaptations. I'm a huge fan) I found that the screenplay depends on whose writing it. I haven't studied Little WOmen in this way or any movie before but I now have the appreciation for it. In the end, because I resonate with the first adaptation with Wyona Ryder and Susan Saradon the 1994 version because of myself growing alongside those actors including Christian Bale and Kirsten Dunst whereas Greta Gerwig's version with Emma Watson and Sairoise Ronan I feel there's a clash between relating to too many different versions that I couldn't settle with. This is why I prefer the original version from that perspective.
I believe the writing of the book was fantastic and the directors. stay true to the story made it all worthwhile. The screenwriting on the otherhand in the 1994 version is far more in depth than Grets Gerwig in 2019 but if i had to compare the original to the BBC Little Women I would say the original. This is because Wyona Ryder and Kisten Dunst do a fantastic job of emotional dynamic and potrays the feelings more as they are very different in age. Amy in the 1994 version appears to be younger and still a child compared to Jo who is much older, a woman, and carry more load of the responsibiliites as an older sibling.
As the youngest of three daughters in my family, I sympathize so much with Amy in Gretta's version. Her going into the scene already knowing she'll be denied is how I've felt so often; you keep hoping that maybe they'll take pity on you this time, but they deny you again. Even the way she was whining rather than being less childish about it is accurate, because you think, "If I keep it less serious than it actually feels for me, then it won't hurt as badly when they reject me." If you had to truly ask them for something, with no other facades put on and they reject you, then they're not just rejecting the childish mask you put up, but they're rejecting YOU as a person. You get to this point where you've almost completely given up, and it's agonizing to go through AND to watch, so I really liked how it was done.
Another thing was the way she had no real build up; she could tell that her time to try persuade them to bring her with was almost up, and rather than going through all these different stages that could take too long, she goes straight to "Please take me. I'll die if you don't."
In Gretta´s version i was actually kinda on Amy´s side. The argument and emotions felt so real, as did the older sisters just ignoring the youngest and not taking her seriously.
I've never watched Little Women, but the second clip from the BBC adaptation made me want to watch it, which says a lot.
Idk if I agree with this take.
This video seems to paint Greta’s take as intentionally “less impactful,” when in reality, she just decided to take a more grounded approach to this beat compared to others in the film. The BBC version seems to play the scene for more drama and emphasis, but that doesn’t mean one is inherently better than the other.
Pacing in film is so vital that to take a scene out of context like this and compare the emotional weight candidly misrepresents the intention of both films IMO.
I liked the 2019 version.... because two of my favorite actor are there... these two give me an emotional roller coaster as soon as they appear on screen.
I will definitely try to put these concepts in my writing... but I still have difficulties to balance everything... emotion vs plot, when to go on vs when to take more time to enter in a scene... I'm new to this... and I have to stop thinking I must rewrite everything as soon as Abbie puts on a new video 😅
BTW... that shaked emoji just killed me every time
Really great comparison showing the emotional dynamics. But justice to the two different approaches the Gerwig version had more to do with characterization and setting up Amy as almost irredeemable. And honestly in the Gerwig version I don't think we ever forgive Amy, but in the novel and the other versions of the novel we do.
I think I preffer the sadistic way blondie burned the book page by page, but the smack in the bbc version was well deserved. I think overall the bbc version is better, but the burned book revalation is mutually exchangable. If I stitch the two and flip the book burning and the "you burned my book bitch scenes" the story would still work. The two reaction segments make all the difference. The shock on the older women's faces in the bbc version is a classic bystander reaction many movies use.
I like that you use two different versions of the same scene as an example, since it removes a lot of other differences that also affects the impact of the scene.
Fantastic side by side comparison with so many helpful examples! Thank you Abbie!
This made me realize how much of a burning hatred I still caring for Amy lol. Reading the book, watching any adaptation, I always found her insufferable at best and unbelievably horrid at worst. I’m with Jo on this one lol.
Your way of analyzing them though was really good. I hadn’t really thought about contrasting different version of the same kind of scene and I find it fascinating. Thank you!
The BBC version is just WAY too overly dramatic for me. I dont think the actress playing Jo is able to carry the gravity that this scene wants to uptake. I definitely prefer the 2019 version. Its one of my favorite movies of all time and i could just sit there and disect all the directing and writing choices forever
Thank you! I've read Little Women every year for the past 60 years, and I've seen every adaptation I could find, and the BBC version is my favorite. That scene where John goes to war as the girls sing Land of the Leal is such a powerful interpretation of a single sentence from the book. I can't even type this memory of it without tears.
i wasn't even paying much attention while watching this but the 2nd version really did instill some rage within me
Thank you! This was extremely helpful, and I can already see how it will drastically improve my novel. One other thing I noticed between the two little women scenes was that the effective one also made effective use of foreshadowing to tie the book burning to that argument, which helps the reader to feel more empathy when she acts out.
What irritated me about the first one (2019) is I never knew why Amy wasn't allowed to go to the theater. I haven't seen the 2017 one. And I was like why would it be a big deal if she went? 😭 I didn't know there would be another showing of the play next week Jo should've said that! Omg! This is why you don't act on impulse. I think people would be more torn about whose side they're on if Jo did something that was on the same level of bad as Amy destroying her novel. I totally understand the feeling of wanting to go somewhere but not being invited or allowed tho. It hurts.
I inadvertently did this in book two of my series (currently writing it)! My character struggles to use his magic, mainly because he's looking for instant gratification, and it doesn't happen (expectation/reality!), and it isn't until nearly three-quarters of the way into the book that it finally works for him. Why? Because he let go of his unrealistic expectations and accepted reality. His epiphany moment happens when he goes back to an old friend (his guitar), where he gets lost in the music. When he stopped thinking about it, stopped trying to force it, stopped wanting it to happen, his magic flows.
The scene works, but I didn't know why. I get it now. I could hear him playing his guitar when I wrote it, and I still can hear him playing when I read back through it. So... thanks, Abbie!! :) Now to do this, intentionally, elsewhere in the story!
Wow, when you were talking about "Expectations vs Reality" I couldn't help but think about everything I went through when I was joining the Army. I specifically joined in order to learn a skilled trade, chose a trade that had a direct correlation in the civilian world, and then prepared myself for basic training by running everyday, conditioning my body to get it used to the severe abdominal cramps afterward, and learning how to do pushups, situps etc. I had never been physically active in my life. When I finally did make it to basic I suffered from extremely severe bronchitis and was vomiting and coughing non-stop the entire time. Despite this, I managed to pass all my PT tests through the sheer power of will. Finally, after all that I make it to my unit and the first thing that happens is that I am not allowed to do machining, and if I try to weld anything I get harrassed terribly by toxic leadership. All I am allowed to do are worthless details while the other soldiers get to actually weld and do machining. You have no idea how devastating this was. There was no happy ending to this. My life should be turned into a movie because it was absolutely insane the bs I had to go through.
22:05 the fight choreography is much more realistic too. a back and forth, some yelling, shoves, pulling hairs/ears, finish with a big heavy-looking slap with her whole weight into it. the first one, the fight was almost like a brawl, with characters rolling around, and that awful, awful shaky cam taken straight from a low budget action movie
I have to say comparing the two new ones that I’d never watched and then watching the old one, I still prefer it. She waits till she comes home and leaves her book out at night, and she takes it downstairs and is caught burning her book. That scene is faster paced, demonstrated with action and not dialogue. Don’t get me wrong the movie is slow paced and falls off a little but in general the show me don’t tell me principle of the 90s makes those movies very entertaining.
I have never seen this film. But the second one really hits hard. I was shocked when the slap coming.
Never read the book, but I felt like much of the dialogue in Gerwig's film lacked subtext. The characters often said exactly what was on their mind, which felt forced and fake.
In music, dynamics mark the passage of time, a reminder that this is not an eternal existence, but a finite reality. Thus the motion of time presents an expectation of something on the horizon rather than stagnation, or the absence of change. It is the blessing and curse of this existence, to be aware of time.
I think not only the pacing, but also the camera angles. The second ones(BBC) more cinematic and closed-up it gives a more personal and intense feel.
I, for one, hate when women tell me that I'm not allowed to come. 8:35
More importantly though, this is definitely an extremely insightful video that cuts to a core principle of writing that I probably subconsciously knew, but was never able to put into words or actively consider. Watching this will, I think, really help me to actively consider this element in my own writing in the future. In fact, it's one of the more generally insightful writing analyses I've watched on here.
Please do many more of these comparison videos. Your ability to break down scenes is wonderful. I learned allot from this as I watched both of these films in the past month. A Sense and Sensibility comparison would be awesome as well.
You are absolutely beautiful btw. Kind talented, educated and driven. Encourages the rest of us to stay focused and achieve our goals. Thanks for doing what you do!
If I have to compare I would say the first one felt more real. I have first hand experience how passive agressive people argue. It is more like this. A sudden - often unfounded - outburst of anger and rage.
As for the second version? I didn't feel like Amy thought she is going to be invinted. This kind of "Then I'll go too" type of remarks are telltale sings of emotional manipulation [and not enthusiasm]... Also after the fight I don't think Amy did realize deep down that she did something wrong. I haven't seen anything resembling remorse... Just a narcissistic girl's victim mentality...
The two scenes portrayed to entirely different personalities. Maybe it is just me, but for me the first version was somewhat more captivating. The second one felt like it is too much...
If I might offer some feedback, I thoroughly enjoyed your breakdown of the scenes, and your emoji game is on point! That said, I would have loved to see both scenes first before you jumped into the discussion. I find the constant starting and stopping frustrating and distracting when trying to establish an opinion on something, and it was pretty clear from the start which one you favored. I'm sure you have to consider total video length, but if it doesn't add too much time, I would have found that setup more engaging. Overall, though, I found your video quite interesting and informative. Thank you for sharing!
Hey Abbie! I've been watching your channel for years while simultaneously writing my magnum opus. Every time I get into a creative funk and can't seem to write, all I have to do is watch one of your videos on writing and I'm back to the page. Thanks girl! You're not only a great fellow writer, but an awesome cheerleader for the writing community. I pray for your writing life to be blessed as you have blessed others 🥰
Oh... my goodness. I've never seen any adaptation of "Little Women", nor have I ever read the story itself. With that being said, I think not having context really made the examples you gave pack a huge punch here. The first example reallly didn't make me feel anything, whereas the BBC version had me shouting at the screen. Fantastic examples! I really understand the concept you're describing here, which is great because I often struggle with this kind of writing advice. Thank you so much for this information!
It's so crazy that this video came out right now because I randomly came to this same realization just a couple weeks ago by analyzing episodes of I Love Lucy! It's absolutely true
If people havent seen arcane, i highly recommend it. Episode 3 especially, uses this to devastating effect.
*slams hat on the ground* EMOTIONAL DAMAGE - I mean EMOTIONAL DYNAMIC CHANGE
Ignoring the clickbait headline, this is a great format to analyze writing techniques. Hope to see more.
I see your point, but this is more, "I like this way better," than, "this is the way to do it."
I love it when you do Cade studies, it really brings out your passionate personality.
This was really great and makes me want to see the movie.
I’ve been told I’m a lot like Jo
I am so glad you made a comparison between Greta Gerwig's version and the BBC version because I don't hear anyone talk about BBC's adaption, which I find to be my favorite. Of course, because it is a series, there is a lot more exploration of the characters in general, even Marmee herself. However, I still find it chokingly hard to sympathize with Amy in the BBC version. She just comes off as an absolute demon. I think in the Greta Gerwig version, I can at least see some humanity in the immature girl. And since GG's version is better understood by those who know the story already, it makes the moment anticipated enough, I think. Especially with the way that Jo comes downstairs and immediately suspects what Amy did, and that neither have to say much to the other for the uproar to occur. I still find it engaging. It's still, in some way, realistic. But overrall, every adaptation of Little Women was meant to portray a different message, which just speaks to how profoundly complex the story is and how much more is left to explore with each character. Which is probably why many of us never feel like we have closure with the March family. I've watched the 1933, 1994, and BBC version as well as some pretty expositiory clips of GG's version and I think they all offer diverse perspectives on the story. However, to me, the BBC version really highlights the family dynamics and just how connected the March sisters are to one another and need each other no matter what they feel in the moment. And how they should not regret the past or fear the future but be grateful for each other nevertheless. It follows Jo's maturity in becoming less tempered and stubborn, seeing the value of all her sisters, etc. All the girls, even Beth, learn what it truly means to be women; complex creatures who act with humility, strength, reflection, and passion. Essentially, facets of their own mother. This is why I believe it portrays the heart and purpose of Louisa May Alcott's story in the best way yet.
10:30 it’s probably a mixture of both. She is upset but she is terrified of what the truth is. She’s probably hoping her sister hid it away somewhere, but she also worried about it being damaged. I imagine she has likely been working on the novel an incredibly long time and that work is irrecoverable.
This is one of the best presentations I've seen on the difference between a Good Story and an Outstanding One. Contrasting two versions of the same scene is brilliant and I commend you for not only the clever emoji scale but for distilling the explanation of how each scene attained the level it did - in 3 concise statements. I believe this video addressed both visual and auditory learners on multiple levels and I'd love to see the same technique applied to your other videos. I only wonder if there are enough movies with comparable versions? 😂 BTW as someone with a lifelong hearing deficit who only recently attained "normal" (assisted) hearing levels - I've been amazed at how music and sound are used to manipulate e.g. I find the use of music to influence newscasts and documentaries appalling.
I vote the same scene from the 1994 Little Woman Movie is better then both of these two examples lol
Well I love that version more then these two to begin with
The Winona Ryder version is my favorite, but I haven't watched the BBC version. I'll definitely check it out. I tried the Greta version and it was so flat and the acting was wooden, that I couldn't through more than a few scenes. Thanks for the analysis! I always enjoy your insights.
I am a story teller by way of Dungeon Master ( D&D ). Thank you for your beautiful dissection of this topic! I love when my players are deeply emotionally invested in their characters, in the people of my world, and in what is happening around them. You have made it so much clearer how to do that. Thank you!
I was planning to watch 2017 Little Women, and now I was convinced!
anyway thank you for this video, now I understand what 2019 version lacks in that part, because I have read the book and the 2019 version of the movie just feels really sudden in that scene, unlike in the book I really felt something
Greta Gerwig's version is definitely my favorite adaptation. I've seen plenty of Little Women adaptations for years and read the book because my mom and sister adored it, but every version fell flat. The first time I watched 2019 Little Women, I was starstruck. The characters finally connected. The themes were developed and the arcs were actually consistent and meaningful. It felt like a thousand stories in one. Forever my favorite.
It was really good, but I wouldn't recommend it for somebody unfamiliar with the story because I think they would get confused. It's definitely not a way to introduce the story to someone.
@curtthegamer934 and I would disagree with that. It was the first version that my nine year old sister ever watched and she got it right away. That kid was able to understand color grading and non-chronological storytelling pretty well. I love showing it to new people.
@@curtthegamer934 it was my introduction to it and i got everything right away. that adaptation is what makes me understand the characters.
This is really good for directors to study as well. A lot of these comparisons are not just about the writing, but also the acting and directing. With BBC's version the clear winner again.
This is gold Abbie! what an excellent idea to compare the two and show why one is an emotional rollercoaster and the other is not.
I found this video after 8 years of burning paper to help with my writing. Thank you for this!
This is very random but another GREAT example of this writing technique is the scene in The Greatest Showman where Phineas shuts Lettie & the other 'freaks' out of the reception after Jenny sings for the first time in America. Lettie & the other's are SO excited and raving about how amazing Jenny's voice was while trying to enter the room, with Phineas just repeatedly brushing them off & barring them entry. First he says it's too crowded, then he says no-one will pay to see them in his circus before shutting the door in their faces. Throughout the exchange you watch their thrilled & excited expressions gradually fall into sadness, shame and disappointment as it set's in that Phineas is excluding them completely. Just thought it was another really well done example of the Expectation vs. Reality portrayed in on-screen emotion.
I can see how Gerwings works better for a film while the BBC version works better as being true to the book.
Like all feedback should be, you do an excellent job showing us why expectation vs. reality is a necessary tool to keep in the writing toolbox when writing for emotional impact. I watched the 1994 version of Little Women, and nothing beats that one for me. Amy's character is portrayed well in all three versions, and I can relate to them as an older sister and a mother. I love how writing and performance go hand in hand but can make all the difference in how the audience relates to the character. Reading the comments and the conversation that brings out an audience's opinion and feedback from their perspective helps a writer so much, as reaching her readers profoundly is essential to the writing process. The actresses in the 1994 film were phenomenal. I haven't seen the BBC or the 2019 versions, but I will dive into both after seeing these clips. I love the story, and that scene is so intense that it gets me every time. Am I the only one who felt both of these versions emotionally, just in a different way individually? I've been trying to find the missing piece to the puzzle that helps to write emotion well, and this video found me at just the right time. "Expectation vs. Reality" will forever be a note in my journal I have titled "The Craft," which I skim through every time I sit down to outline, plot, free-write, etc. Thank you for another great topic!
4:03 How to train your dragon's flight scene has to be the best example.
I personally prefer Gerwig's versuon of the scene. But I haven't watched the BBC movie, so I'm going entirely based on this clip you showed with the commentary. Maybe I will feel differently if I watch the movie.
Was just reading back one of my first drafts and noticed that something was wrong through out some of my scenes. But I couldn't explain what was wrong. You just explained what it was. Thank you!
The BBC version is my absolute favorite version of little woman!! ❤❤❤ no one ever seems to talk about it 😕
As an amateur musician now writing my 2nd novel, it really hit me. A friend once called Baroque chamber music sewing machine music as it is often relentlessly even in pace and dynamics. An inauthentic but pleasing way would be to vary the pacing. Have subtle crescendos and decrescendos. Maybe riff on the theme. Never happen among classically trained musicians. Of course.
Hey Abbie, i need some help with writing motivation & ideas for the "plot" of my story, which i will be making into an animated series. So the story is about wolves in a chaotic world breaking apart due to the "shifts" which are linked to the moon, stars & a character named Hiroshin, the world is devided into 4 regions each with their own wolf tribe, one tribe is made up of shaman wolves, another warriors, another one hunters & the 4th tribe consists of an unorganized group of exiled wolves, the main characters are the "luminal bloodline" a group of wolves with magic powers linked to their respective animal star constellations, their mission is to stop the shifts.
I can tell you more if you're interested & describe the main characters of course.
If you're struggling with plotting, I'd suggest learning about the Save The Cat method -- it's a great place to start with your plot outline!
also i love amy's guilt and discomfort as she's burning the book, like she knows she shouldn't be doing this, and she isn't quite sure she is, that walk down the stairs as she's holding the manuscript is fantastic, and her bitter bitter expression as she opens the fire, like damn that is some good film making
I loved this! The way you gave the examples was so well done and I could TOTALLY sense which one carried the emotional dynamics better! You really are a brilliant writer-- all of your stuff is gold and you are the reason I am writing my first novel!
It's so refreshing to see love for the BBC version. I will always have a deep love for the musical Little Women, but that is more centered around Jo's character because of the shorter run time. So the musical is my story of Jo's coming of age andmaturity, BBC version is the full story of the entire family.
I definitely feel like the BBC version is more captivating. As a writer I strive to slow down more and make these conflicts stretch out even more. I would love to see a video on how Quinten Tarantino stretches out tension and suspension the way he does. Great analysis by the way 👍
you perfectly described how to execute ideas, scenes, stories, in a more interesting way. in other words how to show something. reminds me of dan harmons story circle and kishotenketsu. it constantly subverts expectation. but i feel like theres also an exception to this like when you over do it the story looses its meaning theme wise. so its kind of tricky.
I wish i can download your videos to watch later. You're literally the best author I've met here