How god awful is Little Women (2019)?

[MaryAndGerryLivingInDerry]

I’m watching it today for the first time having loved little women growing up and seen the 90’s version. It’s just so bad!! and the casting of Laurie! He’s terrible.

My hugely unpopular opinion is that I don’t really like any female characters in books from before the 1920s. I’m sure there are some exceptions (Anne of Green Gables being one) but in general I find the women to be simpering, dull, constrained and not very interesting. I don’t like Jane Austen at all, I do love Thomas Hardy but the women are awful, didn’t like Wuthering Heights and could never see the popularity of Little Women.
There, I’ve said it.

But you could hardly call Cathy simpering, could you?

What is the 2017 version?

They’re either simpering or making nonsensical decisions.

What did you think I happened at the end to make it all make sense @Pollingbadly?

Nothing happened but as it went on I was able to appreciate that this wasn't a straightforward retelling and had to be taken on its own terms. When I was waiting for it to stop jerking back and forth, it didn't work. When I accepted that this interwoven back and forth was a depiction that went beyond the story as it appears in the book, I was able to see how the central themes and characters were fleshed out and faithfully represented, albeit not as expected.

It's a pile of wank.

The 1949 version is the best. Although the 1994 is also very good.

@MaryAndGerryLivingInDerry

This was my first introduction to LW as a very young child before the books. I think it’s still my fave

Yes!!! That is the best version and the one that made me want to read the books. I was hoping someone would remember it I like the 90s version too Like pop's I've never understood why there hasnt been jo's boys. Even as a bbc drama series it was always a more fun book with I interesting characters

Pp's not pops

@shivermetimbers77

I agree, but generally find Little Women to be very dull anyway and can’t understand why people love it so much. What am I missing?

Yes! I’m with you on this, @shivermetimbers77! I think it’s such an overrated book.

I quite liked the Greta Gerwig film - mainly because of the beautiful cinematography, but also because of Saoirse Ronan and Florence Pugh. It’s definitely better than the nineties version, which I saw at the cinema and found interminably dull.

@Larryyourwaiter

One of the biggest disappointments ever. I like Florence Pugh but Amy is meant to be a light character and she’s just not that. 90s version for me all the way. Loved Claire Danes in it.

Claire Danes was the perfect Beth, the new one didn't fit at all. I like winona ryder but Saoirse Ronan was more how i imagined Jo. Definitely preferred the 90s film!

@Pollingbadly

What did you think I happened at the end to make it all make sense @Pollingbadly?

Nothing happened but as it went on I was able to appreciate that this wasn't a straightforward retelling and had to be taken on its own terms. When I was waiting for it to stop jerking back and forth, it didn't work. When I accepted that this interwoven back and forth was a depiction that went beyond the story as it appears in the book, I was able to see how the central themes and characters were fleshed out and faithfully represented, albeit not as expected.

Ahh ok. My issues with it are really just the terrible casting choices, awful acting on some parts, very lazy delivery of lines and pretty shoddy editing.

A BBC three-parter starting Maya Hawke as Jo, and Emily Watson, Michael Gambon, Angela Lansbury. I like it.

@viques

Since Emma W made her true self known I call this film Little Menstruators so as not to upset her.

So so puzzled by Beths death. She was in bed holding jo’s hand, then in the morning jo wakes up and she’s not there. She’s not downstairs as she had been on a previous occasion, so did she die in the night ? So where’s her body? Did someone creep in and remove her without waking jo? And if so, why? Both me and my daughter were in fits of laughter trying to guess where was beths body!!!

'Amy knowing that she has to 'step up' and marry well for the sake of her family, for example, isn't explicitly said in the novel, but would have been true of the time.'

I've seen this said multiple times but it's not true. In Good Wives Amy says, 'One of us has to marry for money. Meg hasn't, Jo won't and Beth can't, so I must' I can't find my copy but it's almost exactly that.

I loved it! Agree with FourEyesGood. Great casting, beautiful to look at and brilliant for warm, fuzzy feelings

Perhaps I don't know enough about cinematography to recognise shoddy editing. Didn't notice poor acting though there are some here who would slate Emma W if her performance had been Oscar worthy for reasons outside the scope of the film. Casting is subjective-didn't see anything here to make it obviously 'bad' though I agree Laurie is weak and the professor is strangely two dimensional. I thought Beth was more real than any other depiction, crippled with social anxiety and not a paragon, without charm but battling private demons and clinging to whatever she can try survive. Not what we're used to seeing in Beth. She's supposed to be the female equivalent of a lame kitten.

My issues with it are really just the terrible casting choices, awful acting on some parts, very lazy delivery of lines and pretty shoddy editing.

I'm really surprised at your analysis. Can't agree with lazy delivery of lines or shoddy editing

Both me and my daughter were in fits of laughter trying to guess where was beths body!!!

Really? 😳🧐

I loved it, thought Siorse Ronan was amazing - I've never read the book though, so maybe it's not one for people who love that?

I like it but I have a girl crush on Florence Pugh

@Ozgirl75

My hugely unpopular opinion is that I don’t really like any female characters in books from before the 1920s. I’m sure there are some exceptions (Anne of Green Gables being one) but in general I find the women to be simpering, dull, constrained and not very interesting. I don’t like Jane Austen at all, I do love Thomas Hardy but the women are awful, didn’t like Wuthering Heights and could never see the popularity of Little Women. There, I’ve said it.

You don’t sound as if you’ve read much, though. Restoration comedy, with its witty, frank, sexually-emancipated heroines? Defoe’s Moll Flanders — con artist, bigamist, convict, transported felon, accidentally marries her half-brother at one point? Austen’s Lady Susan, widowed schemer and flagrant seducer of married men? Becky Sharp? Lucy Graham/Lady Audley, perfect lady but also criminal, con artist, bigamist, child abandoner? The cross-dressing heroine of Albert Nobbs? Zola’s streetwalker turned stage star and professional man eater, Nana? The libertine Marquise de Merteuil? The lesbian vampire Carmilla?

I'm really surprised at your analysis. Can't agree with lazy delivery of lines or shoddy editing

There were a few but off the top of my head- lines- jo: “I don’t know anyone” and. Jo & fredriech’s scene at the train station. Both very poorly delivered. Most likely the direction is to blame. Editing- some very clunky stuff. The scene where Laurie meets Meg at the debutant ball there is a part where it might as well have been the next day there was such a gawping change in the scene.

I really liked it. There is a huge unresolved tension in the book between Marmee’s saccharine ideas of goodness, femininity and duty, which Jo feels she must live up to, and Jo’s own desire to be a writer and an independent woman.

When Louisa May Alcott, who was an abolitionist and early feminist who never married, had Jo ditch Lawrie, it was a bid for independence but she couldn’t avoid marriage for Jo altogether. The ending of the film made me cheer.

@MaryAndGerryLivingInDerry

I'm really surprised at your analysis. Can't agree with lazy delivery of lines or shoddy editing

There were a few but off the top of my head- lines- jo: “I don’t know anyone” and. Jo & fredriech’s scene at the train station. Both very poorly delivered. Most likely the direction is to blame. Editing- some very clunky stuff. The scene where Laurie meets Meg at the debutant ball there is a part where it might as well have been the next day there was such a gawping change in the scene.

If I recall correctly, I’m pretty sure it is the next day - Meg is staying at a house party and only has one good dress, which isn’t fashionable, for the whole stay. You’re right that it is disjointed but for me the ending shows why and brings it together very satisfactorily.