i've always found it interesting how many of the film/series adaptations of little women focus on romance rather than the life of the four sisters as it was always intended to be. greta's adaptation does EXACTLY that. it tells a story of four loving sisters living life through the trials of growing up.
thisssss, people have complained its hard to follow but imo its so visually clear and such a creative way to show time difference. Not only does the difference in lighting help to make the time jumps less confusing, it also reflects the difference in mood between the warm nostalgic childhood and the colder, more serious adulthood in a really simple and effective way :)
I love the 2019 adaptation for many reasons but one thing about the dialogue I love is that the sisters talk all over each other, it's chaotic and messy and so true to life. Plus it reminds me of how I am with my sister. I cry every time I watch this one.
you may say that but i think the majority will agree, especially millennials and boomers will agree that the 94 version is way better. i mean come on, you cant go wrong with winona ryder, clare danes, kirsten dunst, and Christian bale.
Haven't watched the other adaptations, but the sequence where Jo comes downstairs to find Marmee sitting w Beth (in the past) versus Marmee sitting alone (in the present) to reveal Beth's death was just brilliant. Greta Gerwig is a great director!
That seriously fucks me up, I even want to cry watching the analysis of the scene lmao. Such a true way to show grief of a loved one passing. One moment they’re there, sigh of relief. Next moment....
Beths death in Greta's version is much more heartbreaking to me because of how the narration paralleled the past and the present. You really get to feel that their childhood is gone.
Never said it was. Merely love that Greta spent the time to drive home the difference in an interesting and modern way. Obviously she didn't pull that sentiment from no where, It's in the source material but artistic choices are at play too.
AHellaHulabaloo The ending was the stupidest part of the 2019 version. It was one half romcom and the other half I don’t need a man trope, by trying to combine the two it was an ungodly mess. This wasn’t some brilliant artistic, it was her putting her fan fic ending on the story and saying it was what Louisa wanted. Yes I know Louise may Alcott wanted to keep Jo single, but that doesn’t tell us how she would’ve ended the book on those terms. This was a good adaptation it was not great. The fan fiction ending was a big part in why it’s not great; terrible costumes are the biggest.
@@katwernery6505 jesus why are y'all even here if you hate the 2019 version so much? go watch a video about how good the other adaptations are, weirdos.
Greta took the time to understand each character. The cast is great. And Amy and Laurie's love story is finally described as love rather than some revenge plot to get back at Jo.
@@mikejunior211 yeah it wasn't but a lot of people saw it that way. I mean, when I watched the 1994 one I was only 10 so I thought it was very low for Lawrie to get Amy as a "at least I get to be part of the March's family"... I never really saw it as real love vs what he felt for Jo. But now that I'm 37 and get to watch the 2019 remake, it does give it a new light to Lawrie's feelings. I still think he is in the wrong for marrying Amy (cuz he should've just heal from his broken heart first away from that family imo), but I also think that he somehow loves her in a different way.
Read the book. A large portion of the second book is devoted to Laurie and Amy’s relationship. In fact no one including Greta has truly done the characters justice. Every single version has left out important character points about every single character. I will say I love that the relationship was developed more in this version than others, but I don’t think she really understands these characters. Also I thought Emma Watson was terrible in this.
@@theurelita well i hope you find it nice to hear that in the books he indeed took his time to heal. After Amy told him he was lazy he got mad at her and never saw her again. It’s in this time he realized his feelings for Jo weren’t that deep and his relationship with Amy went for a whole path before he even admitting to himself he loved her. 👌🏾👌🏾
You forgot to mention something really important. Everyone loves Jo, but the book gives justice to all of the sisters. Amy actually is similar to one of her actual sisters that become one of the author's bestfriends. All sisters are important in the story.
@@jeiraeth I agree, it’s is certainly difficult to make justice to all four of the sisters characters but the book is such a masterpiece that it managed to make every girl shine in their own way, and give them their own space and time so that us readers are able to notice how truly four of them are the protagonists, no one is more important than the other. And it’s interesting to see how each director in each different adaptation works with that and manages to make it work.
Unfortunately not Meg. Emma Watson is a flat overly precious actor and they turned the character into someone who grapples with whether or not to buy a dress for half the movie. As the oldest sister of three I’d like a more fleshed out Meg for once. ‘94 is the closest.
I love how Greta was able to completely change the ending without changing a single word from the book. She keeps it just ambiguous enough if you want to keep the happy romantic ending, but clear enough to lampshade and comment on how the original ending was always a product of its time. She was able to have her cake and eat it too and it’s just brilliant. It’s an adaptation made specifically for fans of the book, it changes nothing and still changes everything
Well, many think that she made it so you can't really believe the happy romantic ending option without feeling stupid, because she made the way she got with Bhaer in the end, and their relationship, stupid and corny. Obviously if Jo DID fall for Bhaer in the end, it wouldn't be like some sappy romantic comedy. It would be more like the subdued realization in the 94 version, and about her finding an intellectual equal who was also a really good guy. So basically you can't believe that she ended up with Bhaer in this version unless you want to infantilize Jo, which I don't think Greta wanted to do of course. This version almost mocks people who opt to still believe the romantic ending version (even though the book itself did not make a mockery of it). So these scenes of her chasing Bhaer are really just supposed to be fake I think -- playing out the scenes that would satisfy the publisher. However, as much as I like the idea of the climax being her publishing the book, keeping the copyright, and staying unmarried in all likelihood -- I don't really like the way she gave us glimpses into the possible connection between Jo and Bhaer, throwing a hottie like Garrel in our face, only to drop his character from relevance without any explanation for why Jo decided she doesn't really like the guy or has no interest in talking to him anymore.
@@victoire614 I couldn’t disagree more. I think this version still allows for the nuance of Jo finding an intelectual equal, it just focuses more on the true core and heart of the original story which is the sisterly relationships. I don’t think that stating the truth: that the original ending was done to appeal to the masses, is in any way mocking it, it’s just lampshadinng it. I like that the ending Can either be considered as Jo finding happiness in her life again, and as Jo’s imaginary romantic book ending so I find it fairly balanced between the fantasy and realistic endings.
@@susanalopez5052 No, the more compelling theory is that Jo is in fact a lesbian (as was LMA), never had romantic feelings for any man, not even Bhaer, and the whole ending with Bhaer is fake. There's tons of evidence for this in the film and in interviews with Greta. Sorry that it's not fun for heterosexual cis women but Jo is not the protagonist that people have made her out to be. Greta was fulfilling LMA's own written true wishes for Jo's story.
@@victoire614 woah calm down, I don’t even think the profesor and Jo are a compelling couple. And I certainly agree that that Jo being queer is the best and most compelling theory, and I agree that Greta certainly does lean into one theory more than the other. But just don’t think that the remake even mocks or degrades the original forced ending. Pokes fun at it sure, lampshades it sure, calls it out for being forced, absolutely. But your original comment came across as if Greta was disrespectfully mocking the audience for believing one over the other, and in that I really do disagree
Actually we DO know that LMA didn't want Jo married. She says so in her letters, and says she regrets giving into the pressure of the culture of her time, adding that "Jo should have remained a literary spinster."
I like that Jo and Laurie's relationship is framed as friendship and gives Amy much more depth. I love the final scene showing Jo opening her school. You can choose to believe Jo got married but either way, it doesn't matter, she gets her happy ending.
@Caitlyn Carvalho he is not depicted as seductive, but a childhood playmate, a true friend, a lovesick teen, a sweet, sensitive boy who loves tending to flowers in his greenhouse, a lonely feminine kid who gets made fun of for being lonely and feminine. Are those part of that trope? (I don’t think so)
The "break up" scene of the 2019 version is more heartbreaking to watch. I felt not only Laurie's pain of not getting Jo's love but also Jo's heartbreak of losing their friendship. Chalamet and Ronan brought their A game in this scene
"And while we don't know if this was the case..." It was. Louisa May Alcott wanted Jo to remain single by the conclusion of the novel, but her editor and fans of the first half of the book pressured her into marrying the character off. With this scene, Greta wanted to make commentary on what Louisa faced, and honor her story as well as the story of her fictional protagonist. This adaptation of Little Women explored the grey area between Louisa May Alcott and Jo March, as the novel is semi-autobiographical, and Jo is very much a stand-in for Louisa. Personally, I adore how Greta wrote this adaptation.
The fact that Greta's choice to not marry Jo in the end of the movie provokes such strong aversion from so many people just goes to show how much people haven't changed in their subconscious expectations of what happiness is for women since the 1800s...
@Rusty Kinks I do not fully agree. I think there is plenty of feminist readings to be applied to the classics (I myself have been thinking a lot about EM Forster's women recently). And outside of what there is in the actual works, I think there is also room for reimagining old stories in new contexts. They would have to say something more than "look it's X but with female protagonists", but a starship troopers approach is always interesting. Or Hadestown, which manages to weave a lot of progressive ideas into the story of a woman whose only function in the original myth was to die. We must move on, of course, and what we have behind us will not give us radically new ideas, but it can move along with our times in its own way.
I finally finished reading Little Women yesterday and was so put off by the unsatisfying ending for Jo. Watching the 2019 movie brought me peace. 10/10 would watch it over and over again.
i really liked your observation about the differences between "laurie proposes to jo" scenes from the different adaptations. Imo, gerwig's adaptation is the only one that actually does the book justice and frames it as a somewhat selfish and immature move on laurie's part and centers the tragedy around Jo's frustration at seeing her childhood friendship ruined by the pressures of marriage and adulthood. The other versions are sad and sweet, but they tend to focus on Laurie's romantic heartbreak and as a result, Jo's valid concerns about marriage with Laurie don't make a ton of sense and the audience is left a little confused as to why Jo (and the author) are rejecting what appears to be the most obvious romantic pairing. When they're walking around and arguing and Laurie is acting a little comical and immature (as in the book and the 2019 version), Jo's statement that they'd "quarrel" and be "miserable" makes sense and the audience appreciates that Jo is making a difficult, but ultimately correct decision. When they're cuddling together under a tree and quietly saying everything to each other whilst soft music plays in the background, the audience is told that they aren't a good match, but don't really see much evidence of it.
I loved this video, and I agree with you on pretty much everything, but I kind of wish you also said something about Gerwig's handeling of Amy's character. I think it's partly due to Florence Pugh's fantastic acting and portrayal of the character, but I do feel like Gerwig was the first writer of one of the adaptions that truly understood Amy as a character, as a youngest sister, as who she is. Amy finally felt like an actual person that you could love and relate to or at least understand. To me, personally, that is one of the big reasons this adaption stands out to me.
@@mikejunior211 why are you even here? like genuinely all you're doing is shitting on the 2019 film in EVERY single positive comment. go watch a video about how good the 94 version is if you're too stuck in your millennial ways to see how good THIS film is. weirdo.
This!! I never liked Amy until Greta did her justice and then finally as a younger sister I could actually relate to her. It also made her and Laurie’s relationship make more sense and why they ended up together.
Gerwig's adaptation is the only Little Women that I've experienced, so watching clips side by side with other adaptations is a new experience for me. Obviously I'm biased, but Gerwig really has done something special with this story. Great video.
I found it weird. I went to see the movie with my parents, and my mom didn’t love it. I loved it, but my mom told me she didn’t like it because she has already experienced little women multiple times before.
I've seen multiple. Gerwigs is the best to be honest. I grew up with the 1994 one. But Gerwig goes beyond the book and updates it for a modern audience without making it a modern movie.
My preference is for the 1994 version. The cast is far superior, the costuming impeccable, the scenery perfect, and the score exceptional. The 2019 version is lacking heart and is sloppy overall.
Pardon my asking, but if this is the only version you've seen, how do you know Greta did something special? I mean, it was fine, but not better than most of the other versions.
Each adaptation is a reflection of the time in which it was created, attuned to the tastes and cultural mores of the current audience and the filming styles and limitations of the day. You couldn't and wouldn't make a film like Gerwig's in 1949. Preference is going to be affected by what's familiar or what's nostalgic to the viewer.
Exactly. It’s interesting how biased we are. I watched them in order in January, at least I tried. I couldn’t get through 15 minutes of the third one and got quite surprised that other people loved it so much. Is it because that’s what’s familiar? Just a matter of taste? I’ll have to try it again sometime. I guess that jump from the 40s to the 90s is a bit jarring so I might just have to adjust appropriately.
Yes but I still don’t think most directors and screenwriters today could have made it such a great modern take as close to perfect as Greta did in her version
exactly. I feel like people who like the 1994 version the best is because they are used to it and it's nostalgic and it's what they grew up with- and that's definitely me with some other films. I hadn't seen any version before the 2019 one and I didn't even know other versions existed, and the 2019 is my favorite.
The chemistry between timothee chalamet and saorise Ronan is incredible. I truly have never seen anything like it. They’re both such incredible young actors and they work so well together especially in this movie. Their bond seems to transcend time
you may say that but i think the majority will agree, especially millennials and boomers will agree that the 94 version is way better. i mean come on, you cant go wrong with winona ryder, clare danes, kirsten dunst, and Christian bale.
@@iknowexactlywhoyouare8701 Honestly if you can’t tell that there was time skips with the extreme colour difference in the scenes, were you even paying attention? It was painfully obvious from the beginning what was going on in the past and what was currently happening.
As someone who experienced a similar confession like Jo, Gerwig's adaptation is much more realistic and just as much dramatic. The distance between the characters, the pushing and awkwardly approaching is just how it is. Something shatters and you try to ignore it - keep distance, and also desperately try to comfort the other while know that would just increase their pain.
i think the subtle change between jo responding with "they're not empty" instead of "not empty now" is brilliant. It makes the line seem so much realer and less scripted, making Jo seem more vulnerable and emotional
I've seen all 4 versions, and while I will forever hold the 1994 version closest to my heart, I cannot deny that Gerwig's version is FANTASTIC. I especially appreciate her fleshing out Laurie/Amy's relationship, because NO OTHER VERSION gives them justice, aside from the novel (which I've read several times).
I find it funny that you say we can never know Alcott's true intentions for Jo, because we kind of do--not in the Little Women series, but in its (darker, sadder) sequel series (Little Men and Jo's Boys). In that, we get a whole cast of orphans from Jo's school to follow, one of which is a young girl named Nan who has a suspiciously similar romantic trajectory to Jo, Laurie, and Amy. She goes on to be happily single while working in the medical field. ;)
Goddamit I'm reading Jo's boys and I just fell into a spoiler...anyways I'm happy for Nan, Tommy seemed too sensitive for her and I never shipped her with any other boy.
But we also see a very different outcome in Rose in Bloom, where Archie is representative of the Laurie character, and Mac is the Thoreau/Goethe/Professor character. Guess who ended up with Rose? Louisa ardently decried the public's desire to hook Laurie up with Jo. She meant Jo for Fritz, and in case readers thought she didn't mean it, she did it again in Rose in Bloom.
That statement that "we can never know" is incorrect. Louisa's subsequent writings (in letters, etc.) make it clear that she absolutely did not intend for Jo to get married; rather, she wanted Jo to remain single, but her publisher knew the public would want her to get married in the end. So Louisa bowed to the pressure, but later regretted it. This is well documented.
Alcott's _Little Women_ is a "problem text" in some ways due to the ending being the result of conflict between Alcott and the publisher, with Alcott's resistance to pairing Jo and Laurie leading to their respective pairings with Bhaer (who Alcott herself, in later correspondence, seemed to regard as a bit of a joke) and Amy. Basically every film/TV adaptation after the Hepburn/Cukor one made substantial revisions to the Bhaer character to make him a more palatable love interest for the heroine (typically making him younger and sexier). However, Gerwig's is the first adaptation I can think of where there's clearly been a lot of thought put into reframing the story to emphasize the Amy/Laurie pairing. The non-linear storytelling is crucial to this, as we first see Laurie when Amy meets him in Paris and we're informed upfront that Jo turned Laurie down, and then this strand of the 'modern' setting is organized around Amy and Laurie's interactions in Paris, something that, in a linear setting, would not happen until the second half of the film.
Colonel Green I’d argue that making Bhaer younger and sexier doesn’t necessarily endear him to the audience, as the only version where I found Jo’s relationship with Bhaer bland and the stereotypical „wow man and woman look at each other, now they’re obviously true love” story. People think the only way to make Jo marrying Bhaer bearable (pun not intended) is to narrow their age gap and call it a day, when there’s so much more to it than that. Likewise, Amy and Laurie are actually very sweet together if the audience had bothered to see Amy as anything more than a consolation prize. For centuries, LW readers have been parroting the same „Bhaer is a joke/Amy is a second choice” argument like a nightmare echo chamber without actually looking deeper into it, I’m tired of it.
Do you mean Amy and Laurie's interactions in Paris? I don't recall Jo ever being in Paris. However, I agree that Gerwig does a great job at Amy and Laurie's dynamic-but i'd also say that the prior adaptations ignored the written dynamic of the pairing as well. Gerwig overall more focuses on Amy as a figure of feminism that takes things from a separate feminist approach than Jo. In the book, I thought Laurie and Amy as a pair were fantastically written, mainly because Laurie finds he has reason to love Amy, she coddles him but doesn't let him do whatever he wants. Amy is grieving the loss of Beth, and Laurie is maturing from his wanting a music career. They fall in love at a point where Amy's distracted from her ambitions and in a vulnerable state, and Laurie has grown up enough to approach her (not to mention has missed the sense of family he got from the March family), and wants her company.
I think Gerwig gave more sense to Jo's character. And gave amy and laurie's relationship justice. The previous films portrayed Jo as much more poised than makes sense. Insisted on never marrying and loved her creativity and liberty too much, but created too much romantic connection between her and Laurie. The story makes more sense if his love is unrequited and Jo's romantic thoughts of him are rooted in brief loneliness and nothing else. While i would have preferred jo to not have married by the end, Friedrich was still a much better match for her. Because Jo didnt have to compromise who she was. And Gerwig's way of portraying it makes it very fulfilling--giving the impression that Jo truly did stay true to her character.
you may say that but i think the majority will agree, especially millennials and boomers will agree that the 94 version is way better. i mean come on, you cant go wrong with winona ryder, clare danes, kirsten dunst, and Christian bale. at least all of the girls were casted by American actresses. no uggs there, either. no one enjoyed the jumping back and forth in time time that the 2019 had. it was too out of place and hard to keep up with
the immediate juxtaposition between jo waking up to beth's recovery from her sickness and jo waking up to discover that beth has died is so impactful and only possible through the non-lineal storytelling. i wouldnt have it any other way.
A perfect example of the fact that remakes do not have to be automatically inferior or needless. Gerwig's decision to fragment the timeline and play the present and the past off of each other was a masterstroke, and of course her filmmaking sensibilities did a lot to bring the story into the modern era in a way that never feels like it's TRYING to do that. Just a wonderful, wonderful film.
In my opinion, the 2019 version was one of my favourites, rivaled only by the 1994 version. The pros of Gerwig's film were making Amy far more likeable and sympathetic than her other counterparts, fleshing out more scenes and characters, and by getting to meet the sisters while they're already older, and flashback to them when they're younger, the energy and brilliance of the cast. The few cons would involve not getting to know Beth as well, since she's arguably overshadowed by her more outgoing sisters, and not mentioning the March's economic situation, since they were supposed to be living in poverty in the original story, yet this doesn't come across in the film.🎥😻
Trina Q well said! I like Thomas's analysis of the broader themes in the new version, but while watching the movie, I couldn't figure out how these girls were really struggling as they had independence, (seeming) wealth, beauty and love. The character development was therefore, weak, and in my opinion, relied on work done by previous versions in familiarising the audience with the characters' motivations.
They aren’t meant to poor in the sense that most other American poor were. They are simply fallen from the upper/middle class to something poorer but not necessarily very impoverished. Especially as it would make sense that they still are surrounded by a lot of things that come from the days when they WERE wealthy
Esta última versión de Mujercitas rescata en algo (la hace una verdadera luchadora con pensamiento propio y no sólo una niña arrogante y vanidosa) la historia fascinante e inédita de la hermana menor de May Alcott-Louisa y artista por derecho propio. Todos conocemos la historia de las hermanas March, heroínas de las Pequeñas Mujeres de Louisa May Alcott . Pero mientras todos aplauden a Jo March, basada en la propia Louisa, Amy March es a menudo la hermana menos favorita. Ahora es el momento de aprender la verdad sobre la verdadera "Amy", la hermana de Louisa, May. Elegante, sociable, creativa, May Alcott crece deseando experimentar el amplio mundo más allá de Concord, Massachusetts. Mientras su hermana Louisa hace manualidades, la propia May es una artista talentosa y dedicada, que toma clases en Boston, rechaza una propuesta de matrimonio de un pretendiente acomodado y se enfrenta al desprecio por ingresar a la profesión de hombre. (La autora de Mujercitas retrata muy mal a su hermana menor ya que sentía unos celos profundos del éxito social de su hermana ,tuvo en sus manos una pluma eficaz para una venganza sublime, hizo y hace odiar a su hermana por siglos La vida para la familia Alcott nunca ha sido fácil, así que cuando se publica Louisa's Little Women , su éxito alivia las cargas financieras que habían enfrentado durante tantos años. Todos están de acuerdo en que la novela es encantadora, pero a May la impresiona la imagen de "Amy March" egoísta y consentida. ¿Es esto lo que su querida hermana realmente piensa de ella? Así que May se embarca en una búsqueda para descubrir su propia identidad verdadera, como artista y como mujer. Desde Boston a Roma, Londres y París, esta mujer valiente, talentosa y decidida forja una vida propia increíble, convirtiéndola en mucho más que simplemente "The Other Alcott". Amo a Abigail May Atcott (Amy) lucha para ocupar un lugar en un mundo de hombres sin renunciar a su femineidad, no se masculiniza como su hermana
I love it when Theodore tries to tell Jo that he loves her but she keeps talking, trying to block him out. I love that scene with a passion I can't explain.
Poor Jo....awkwardness thing in the world when a guy had decided you're his one true love and the solution to all his problems and you're like "Hell no, honey you're delusional, I'm not any of that!"
The only movie I've repeatedly cried at. Five times total from beginning to end. I saw this at a very particular time in my life and it made me believe in the limitless possibility of young adulthood, especially as a young woman. An emotional cornucopia
you may say that but i think the majority will agree, especially millennials and boomers will agree that the 94 version is way better. i mean come on, you cant go wrong with winona ryder, clare danes, kirsten dunst, and Christian bale. at least all of the girls were casted by American actresses. no uggs there, either. no one enjoyed the jumping back and forth in time time that the 2019 had. it was too out of place and hard to keep up with
Another subtle but brilliant piece of direction done by Gerwig is when Amy falls through the ice, we anticipate it is about to happen but we see Jo and Laurie fall, then comes Amy's cries for help. I was absolutely in awe when I saw that little directing choice and of course with all the other seamless intertwining of different stories which makes for great juxtaposition. Gerwig definitely should have been nominated for directing instead of Todd Philips
I like Gerwig’s version because all the other films treat the rest of the sisters as background characters, when they deserve just as much spotlight as Jo
you may say that but i think the majority will agree, especially millennials and boomers will agree that the 94 version is way better. i mean come on, you cant go wrong with winona ryder, clare danes, kirsten dunst, and Christian bale. at least all of the girls were casted by American actresses. no uggs there, either. no one enjoyed the jumping back and forth in time time that the 2019 had. it was too out of place and hard to keep up with
I’ve only watched Greta’s and the 2017 miniseries and one thing I want to comment on is how Beth was portrayed in the miniseries. I think the shorter run time of the movie didn’t allow for much time for Beth’s growth to be shown, but her portrayal in the series was amazing, from seeing her taking steps despite her anxiety, just how sick she became, and her death being the only onscreen death to ever make me cry!
As a young women (now 21)I loved the 2019 version bc it felt like it was about Jo's life and not about romance. This version and the 1995 I think are the best in the sense that the actors look closer to the ages the characters were supposed to be, which is part of what made the 2019 version of Laurie's confession feel so real. This is in addition to the way they spoke, their body language, how Jo actually looks awkward vs prim and proper when she tells him she couldn't live in elegant society, and their emotions, everything felt so real. Not only that but the other movie seemed to sympathize for Laurie more than portraying Jo's position. As a young woman, having just read the book in 2020 and watched the movies after, I related far more to the 2019 movie and felt like it hit the spirit of the book. A big reason to that was bc of the scene where Jo explains her desire for love while wanting to achieve more than just a relationship, not wanting a romantic relationship but still feeling so lonely, I FELT that. That was one thing the book covered on a subconscious level. I also loved how Jo represented both Jo and Ms. Louisa May Alcott by the book publishing scenes. One other thing that I couldn't be more happy about was how the latest movie was feminist without putting down the men. You were still able to love Laurie and Prof. Bear. (Barre? Idk) it was great, 10/10.
Great video, but just want to point out that Jo’s engagement/marriage to Fredrich doesn’t just happen in the in-movie book. However, I do agree that Gerwig stands alone in her assertion that Jo’s ultimate success is her book, not her marriage, and it is definitely a commentary in previous adaptations to not have that scene be the conclusion of the film. In the last chapter of the book, we jump forward to see Jo and Fredrich running a school for boys out of Aunt March’s house, which Jo inherits. This is the same in the movie, we catch a glimpse of Fredrich teaching music while Jo is bringing the cake out to Marmie, and they share a look and a few words that we aren’t able to hear, but their body language is very open. When the sisters present the cake to Marmie, their husbands (John, Laurie, and Fredrich) walk up behind them to join in the family tableau. It might not be apparent to someone who hasn’t read the book, but Gerwig remains very faithful to the original text. Jo is still independent and well rounded, but she is also married. I think the publisher scene was a nod to Alcott’s resistance to the marriage plot in the real book, but it’s not a rewriting of the ending.
Going by the script, I think the status of Jo and Friedrich is meant to be ambiguous, i.e., it's a bit of a "you can read it either way" situation that incorporates both the actual book Alcott wrote and the meta-history behind the novel (where we know it wasn't Alcott's preferred ending). So it's unclear whether the Plumfield sequence is just part of the in-universe book or what's actually happening.
Colonel Green that makes sense too. I think Marmie and the father are handing out copies of Jo’s book at Plumfield (I could be wrong, there might just be some books on their table), but that was I assumed this was happening outside of Jo’s book. Geez, it’s confusing to write about a book in a movie about that book based on a real book!
Colonel Green and it makes sense that it’s intentionally ambiguous! It’s still way more progressive than the definitive marriage plots in previous adaptations
Ian Doten I don’t understand why Jo being married is supposedly „less feminist”. She’s not portrayed as having to give up anything about herself to get married (opening the school was actually her idea, not her husband’s, and they ran the school using the mansion she inherited from her aunt. The whole thing was helmed by her, her husband only helped teach). Furthermore in the sequel novels they’re clearly shown to be very happy. If Louisa had wanted she could’ve simply killed Friedrich off or made him a non-entity (the way Jo’s father was), but she didn’t. I’m just baffled by this wildly popular interpretation that Jo not being married is somehow feminist. Wouldn’t the fact that she married out of love AND is happy in an age where women often had to contend with less than satisfactory husbands, what’s truly feminist here?
you may say that but i think the majority will agree, especially millennials and boomers will agree that the 94 version is way better. i mean come on, you cant go wrong with winona ryder, clare danes, kirsten dunst, and Christian bale. at least all of the girls were casted by American actresses. no uggs there, either. no one enjoyed the jumping back and forth in time time that the 2019 had. it was too out of place and hard to keep up with
The ONE thing that the 1994 version has over Gerwig's is that gorgeous Thomas Newman score. Not that it would necessarily fit with what Gerwig is doing, but it's just such a lush, warm, memorable score. The score in the 2019 adaptation is a bit unremarkable, imo.
Yes, I agree totally. Thomas Newman’s ‘Little Women’ score is so magical and memorable and nothing comes close to it. I can make myself cry just by remembering the piano theme when Beth dies. It breaks my heart every time.
Is it me or does the 1949 version look gorgeous? That proposal scene with the blurry forest background behind their gleaming white dress and suit is absolutely stunning. Might watch it just because of that shot.
12:23 We can't know for sure, but there is some evidence supporting that Alcott never wanted Jo to get married, I highly recommend looking up the story about Little Womens debut. Personally, I'm really glad Greta included Alcott's publishing struggles in the movie.
I liked Greta Gerwig’s version quite a bit, but I personally enjoy the Wynona Rider version a little bit more. Maybe it’s because I grew up with it and have nostalgia for it. Gerwig’s version certainly had things I enjoyed more, mainly the ending and Teddy’s confession time Jo. I do think people hyped up Gerwig’s version to be one of the greatest things ever put on a screen, while I just think it very good.
Agreed, I love both the 2019 and the 1994 versions equally, especially how Gerwig offered up a fresh perspective with her version, such as leaving it up to the audience's imagination whether Jo married Friedrich or not. 👰
probally other comment already pointed this out but, at 3:05 in the anime version Laurie says he beated up some guys to stop calling him Dora, that is actually just what he says in the book! so it sounds weird but its accurate still :)
Little Women was my #3 movie of the year. It was also my first experience with Little Women. I'd never read the book, I knew previous adaptations had been done but had never seen one, I knew that the main character's name was Jo and the family was named March. That was the extent of my knowledge. And I absolutely adored the film. I thought it was brilliant. I saw it three times in theaters.
I watched the newest version first but then after reading the book the '94 version feels right to me. I love the kind of theater kid/writer feeling you get there. Also, the costumes were much better. However, the ending of the newest version is truly fantastic.
2 года назад+4
The same here. I think also in the new version, even though I loved the ending twist, I think there should be a deeper analysis into why the ages of the girls were changed, as in the book Amy is the youngest one, not Beth... and I really loved the cast of 1994 for this!
I grew up with the 1994 one and loved it dearly all my life, I never thought anything could beat it until I saw Greta Gerwig's version and sobbed the whole way through, I've always found the film and novel struck a personal and emotional cord with me but her version hit even closer to home.
The 1994 version is my favorite. I think it’s the most true to the book in terms of Alcott’s intentions. But I’m sure Alcott would’ve gotten a kick out of the 2019’s version as well!
you may say that but i think the majority will agree, especially millennials and boomers will agree that the 94 version is way better. i mean come on, you cant go wrong with winona ryder, clare danes, kirsten dunst, and Christian bale. at least all of the girls were casted by American actresses. no uggs there, either. no one enjoyed the jumping back and forth in time time that the 2019 had. it was too out of place and hard to keep up with
@@iknowexactlywhoyouare8701 speak for yourself. I thought the flashback structure heightened the emotions and gave good context for the scenes in the future. It’s really not hard to follow, I think. The colors on screen literally change from past to present. Nobody I know had a hard time following
@@iknowexactlywhoyouare8701 did you really find it hard to follow? I’ve seen some critics say this and then not say the same about movies like inception lol
This is a very thoughtful piece on what Gerwig brought to the new adaptation of Alcott's book. Another RUclips creator, Micarah Tewers put out what was a mainly comedic, but also very credible analysis of the 2019's Oscar winning costumes. Tewers explains that while beautiful in appearance, Jacqueline Durran's poor costume choices subliminally diminishes Gerwig's artistic intentions. The hodgepodge approach of Durran takes away what the March family stood for, and why that stance was important. Maybe Durran had a fantastical, "unconventional" philosophy to the costuming, and it's a bad decision to me. Through the movie, either we are grounded in the harsh realities of what marriage meant (Amy's big, showstopper monologue) and defying the publishing norms (Jo's book), OR is the movie focusing on a symbolic attempt to revise the female experience? That's a tough call to pull off both, and Greta struggled with it. She had a surer vision in Ladybird (which I loved).
I personally definitely prefer Gerwig’s take narratively. But the costumes are so awful that they pull me out of the story. So I just can’t watch the movie all the way though- I get distracted by “what on earth is going on with her hair?” “Where is the crinoline?” “Why is her hair down?” “Is this supposed to take part in the 1870s or the 1970s?” (That last thought due to the boho chic wedding outfit worn by Meg). And then I pause it and do t continue watching. I’ve tried to ignore the atrocious costuming, but I just can’t. Also, love Micarah’s video. Bonnets!
I was one of the dancers in the 1994 adaptation, which was filmed in Vancouver, BC, Canada. At 2:32, dancer on the far right (I was a natural brunette back then).
Everything Great did with her adaptation is just RIGHT! She captured the true meaning of the book in the most beautiful and emotional way. She's an amazing director.
you may say that but i think the majority will agree, especially millennials and boomers will agree that the 94 version is way better. i mean come on, you cant go wrong with winona ryder, clare danes, kirsten dunst, and Christian bale. at least all of the girls were casted by American actresses. no uggs there, either. no one enjoyed the jumping back and forth in time time that the 2019 had. it was too out of place and hard to keep up with
Greta's movie is such a work of art, there's so many little details that just make you want to watch the movie over and over again. I like how this one had a lot of symbolism. Like for example how every sister always wears one color (Jo's is red, Amy's blue, etc.) but Marmee always wears all of their colors.
This movie is so close to my heart simply because how Joe got her ending as a successful, single and happy woman. I loved the dialogue she has with marmee about women being so much more than just fit for love. I identify with Joe so much, as do so many other women. The first time I saw the movie, I assumed Joe was married at the end. But the ambiguity was more obvious the second time and I was blown away. It was then that this movie gathered a special place in me forever.
I went in blind watching this movie, didn't know the story and hadn't seen any of the other adaptations. I was so upset that Laurie and Jo didn't end up together (being the hopeless romantic that I am), and that proposal scene broke my heart, but I still loved the movie anyway.
words cannot describe the love I have for the 2019 version. I understand why some people had objections to it, but personally, I adore every single part of it
I still remember the first time I saw my story published in a book, it was merely a compilation of 20 best stories from upcoming authors, my story was the first one, my name in top, to see it all printed out with words that I spent countless nights thinking, writing, erasing, typing, in that moment I couldn't help but cry, it was beautiful, it was perfect, it was the reasoning of my presence in this world, it was mine.
The ending was amazing, it showed that Jo didn’t want to be with Professor Bhaer but added him to her book bc of her publisher which is exactly what happened in real life Even when reading the book, the ending felt weird. Reading Jo in love didn’t feel right, it felt off and finding out it was a pushed inclusion by the publisher was very telling
Contrary to many of the other commenters, I found that I cried less over Beth in the Gerwig version, simply because she got the least focus of the four girls. She felt very two-dimensional to me, so I didn't mourn her the way I mourned the other versions.
Most of the reviews I've watched just stated how the 2019 adaptation strayed from the original plot and sequence of the novel. A retelling of a story doesn't necessarily have to strictly adhere to it's parent story, but rather tell it in a way where it still has the essence of the original and a fresh taste of originality. It felt right for Gerwig to take the artistic liberty in this movie not only in the story, but in its cinematography. Like this video essay had stated, this version was most suitable for people who had already been familiarized with past versions, but is still watchable for those who have not. Gerwig plays and evokes emotions in her adaptation and because of it, this is one of my favorite movies. It kinda deserved better lmfaoo but it's aight
1994 adaptation will always be very dear to my heart and the best for me with Teddy and Jo , can clearly see the love and emotions deeply Throughout the whole movie . And I just loved the cast ! ❤❤ but the latest version has some very great scene aswell .
I saw this movie in theaters with my mother at Christmastime and since then its become one of our favorites. As someone who grew up with lots of sisters, it perfectly captured the energy of everyone talking over each other and the bond between a mother and her daughters. It makes me cry everytime I rewatch it, well done Greta!
I still like the 1994 winona ryder adaptation. The actors were age-appropriate to their roles. And the movie didnt cut back and forth confusingly as the new one does.
One of the things I adored about the 2019 version is the lighting. The change makes you notice the time is from their past instantly and its just so clever and a real representation of how you see the world when you are young, the light in your memories seems different and the present can seem more grey. Its just stunning
Oh call me old-fashioned, but I still like the Wynona Rider version best. I love how it was filmed, its color palette, the cast, everything. The actresses became those characters, whereas if I watch the Greta version, I can only see those actresses, not the characters. I suppose it just comes down to personal preference.
The 1994 Version is in my opinion the only true Version, I absolutely adore this one. The Film from 2019 has its moments, which are entirely outstanding and which make this Version really good, but some situations feel very contrived and are so then hard to bear, they creep me out, that's why I don't really stand behind this Production.
Gillian Armstrong's version is my adored choice. Brilliantly directed, luscious in every way. I'm so charmed by it every time I watch. And Thomas Newman's score alone is reason to fall in love with it.
The 1994 version is my favorite movie of all time. 2019’s unfortunately let me down but my expectations were very high… and we all know expectations are just planned disappointments 😏
I grew up with the 1994 version and love it but this new version by Greta, is now my favourite one! I loved how she change the structure and benefited Amy bc I've always thought that she was misunderstood by the others adaptations.
Your title obviously means "best adaption of Little Women," but I think it has a case for best film adaptation of any novel period. It does such a good job of capturing the spirit of a book while not being overly beholden to the specifics of that book. My personal short list of best film adaptions of novel includes Fight Club, No Country for Old Men, and Lord of the Rings, and this blows all of them away.
Really? Im not being caddy- i haven't seen the film- im honestly curious Better than the shining, the godfather, shindler's list, shawshank redemption, there will be blood? Youve caught my interest so I'll prolly go watch it You really think its that good?
@@TOAOM123 I can’t even begin wrapping my head around how to compare Little Women and The Shining. But, you just gave 4 examples of great movies of novels I’ve never read. In part, I’m saying the film is amazing and I loved it. I’m also saying that it makes amazingly good choices about how it adapts that material, and that’s often a weak spot for adaptions. Although, I would take Little Women over Shawshank, Schindler’s list, and the Shining , for sure. It’s been waaaaaay too long since my single viewing of The Godfather, so I won’t pass judgement there.
@@zehhet I reread the book this year, and watched all 4 major film adaptations, and I'm very impressed with what Gerwig chose to include and expand upon, especially in comparison with the others
I saw the anime version on T.V. when I was little. It came in episodes and I only watched a few. I was so sad when I watched the movies that Beth died and was shocked when Amy married Laurie.
Still haven’t seen it. But I’ve only heard incredible things from fans of the book about how closely the 2019 film matches the images they’d always had in their heads of the world and its characters.
I'd definitely recommend watching it, as offers a unique take on a story told so many times, and it boosts a talented, remarkable cast, plus a wonderful director! 🎥💕
Jo does marry the professor in new version. He is there in the ending with the school. She is just dramatizing it’s for the publisher and wanted originally to leave it out since she didn’t think she had to marry.
I’ve never seen Amy’s character fleshed out and explained so well as in Greta Gerwigs version! The pressure from Aunt March to support the family and societies expectations for her are portrayed so effectively
the 1994 one is the first version i saw as a child and loved it because it gave me fond memories and gave faces to the characters i read in the book. whenever i re-read little women, i cant help but imagine jo as winona ryder, laurie as christian bale, marmee as susan sarandon, and all the other 1994 cast. i also liked the 2019 one--it was a superior adaptation by the points mentioned in this essay, but i cant help liking 1994 more based on the fond memories it gave me (perhaps in this case, first love never dies). also, i liked that in the 1994 one, amy was played by kirsten dunst who was an actual child at the time. it was just a bit jarring to watch adult florence pugh act the part of a vain, coddled, immature supposed little girl, amy. pugh is a great actor without a doubt, but the character amy was supposed to be a little girl in the earlier part of this story and it takes me away that she wasn't played by one.
The 1933, 1949, and 1994 all bring something wonderful to the audience. They reflect the time that they were filmed and when the book was written. It would be unfair to dismiss them. The 1977 tv miniseries was great, and the first adaptation that a ever saw. Sadly, the two silent adaptations are now considered to be lost.
I love the way the new version is adapted with all the movement, development of characters, the performances, and how it plays with the timeline giving it more emotion to each scene. Nevertheless, the version that brings me most to the historic time, as well as the one that feels more realistic to me is the one from 1994, mainly because I think it reflects Jo and her sisters as a free spirit family, yet it doesn´t exaggerate some of their attitudes as I think it does in the new one, giving it a little more credibility to the story considering the times. Honestly, I can´t decide which one I like most, but I think I can say I enjoy more the new one but feel 1964s is more realistic and can truly make you feel you're there.
![Eminem - Fuel (feat. JID) [Official Lyric Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/t5H_CewqpKA/mqdefault.jpg)
Meryl Sleep
Fair point. Counterpoint: Laura Dern
Well said
well said
Well said
Well said
i've always found it interesting how many of the film/series adaptations of little women focus on romance rather than the life of the four sisters as it was always intended to be. greta's adaptation does EXACTLY that. it tells a story of four loving sisters living life through the trials of growing up.
Thank you for this remark.
are you kidding me that's exactly what the 1994 version does. the romance was a subplot to the sisters' lives.
That’s what I like about it too :)
@@queengoblinseriously
@jillybelphegor4819 i have
The change from a vivid color pallete to a opaque one to represent childhood from adulthood was just brilliant.
Sadly it’s not historically accurate
Edit: typo
no one enjoyed the jumping back and forth in time time that the 2019 had. it was too out of place and hard to keep up with
@@iknowexactlywhoyouare8701 a bold statement to make on behalf of everyone else when many people did, in fact, enjoy the jumping back and forth
@@iknowexactlywhoyouare8701 what video do you think you're on? 😂
thisssss, people have complained its hard to follow but imo its so visually clear and such a creative way to show time difference. Not only does the difference in lighting help to make the time jumps less confusing, it also reflects the difference in mood between the warm nostalgic childhood and the colder, more serious adulthood in a really simple and effective way :)
I love the 2019 adaptation for many reasons but one thing about the dialogue I love is that the sisters talk all over each other, it's chaotic and messy and so true to life. Plus it reminds me of how I am with my sister. I cry every time I watch this one.
exactly! and the camera moves around and is more intimate instead of doing a panorama, it resembles the real-life chaos of having a big family!
I watched this movie for the first time while sitting between my two sisters in the theater. It was brilliant and I ugly cried.
you may say that but i think the majority will agree, especially millennials and boomers will agree that the 94 version is way better. i mean come on, you cant go wrong with winona ryder, clare danes, kirsten dunst, and Christian bale.
no one enjoyed the jumping back and forth in time time that the 2019 had. it was too out of place and hard to keep up with
@@bennyton2560 no one enjoyed the jumping back and forth in time time that the 2019 had. it was too out of place and hard to keep up with
Haven't watched the other adaptations, but the sequence where Jo comes downstairs to find Marmee sitting w Beth (in the past) versus Marmee sitting alone (in the present) to reveal Beth's death was just brilliant. Greta Gerwig is a great director!
saw the film 5x in the theater and wept every single time
I cried when Jo and Beth are on the beach.
I found it both brilliant and confusing. But still brilliant! And still got me to cry like a baby even though I was confused about what I was seeing.
That seriously fucks me up, I even want to cry watching the analysis of the scene lmao. Such a true way to show grief of a loved one passing. One moment they’re there, sigh of relief. Next moment....
Watch the other adaptations. Start with 1994 and see how you feel after that.
Beths death in Greta's version is much more heartbreaking to me because of how the narration paralleled the past and the present. You really get to feel that their childhood is gone.
Yup. And thats why i really adore the book
gosh i cried so hard at that scene
I mean Beth's death in Greta's version is sad, but the 94 version was more intense.
No feeling at all for Greta's version. No chemistry between the characters and don't feel any significance in Beth's character
EXACTLY I WAS CRYING LIKE A LIL B*TCH AT THE CINEMA FOR THE FIRST TIME.
In the end it isn't girl gets boy, it's girl gets book. Which is why I love this adaptation the most.
What an idiotic take. The 1994 film ending was not about girl gets boy. You missed the whole point.
Never said it was. Merely love that Greta spent the time to drive home the difference in an interesting and modern way. Obviously she didn't pull that sentiment from no where, It's in the source material but artistic choices are at play too.
AHellaHulabaloo The ending was the stupidest part of the 2019 version. It was one half romcom and the other half I don’t need a man trope, by trying to combine the two it was an ungodly mess. This wasn’t some brilliant artistic, it was her putting her fan fic ending on the story and saying it was what Louisa wanted. Yes I know Louise may Alcott wanted to keep Jo single, but that doesn’t tell us how she would’ve ended the book on those terms.
This was a good adaptation it was not great. The fan fiction ending was a big part in why it’s not great; terrible costumes are the biggest.
@@katwernery6505 they didn't deserve the award for costume design
@@katwernery6505 jesus why are y'all even here if you hate the 2019 version so much? go watch a video about how good the other adaptations are, weirdos.
Greta took the time to understand each character. The cast is great. And Amy and Laurie's love story is finally described as love rather than some revenge plot to get back at Jo.
YES YES
Amy and Laurie was never a revenge plot in 1994..Are you referiing at the Novel?
@@mikejunior211 yeah it wasn't but a lot of people saw it that way. I mean, when I watched the 1994 one I was only 10 so I thought it was very low for Lawrie to get Amy as a "at least I get to be part of the March's family"... I never really saw it as real love vs what he felt for Jo. But now that I'm 37 and get to watch the 2019 remake, it does give it a new light to Lawrie's feelings. I still think he is in the wrong for marrying Amy (cuz he should've just heal from his broken heart first away from that family imo), but I also think that he somehow loves her in a different way.
Read the book. A large portion of the second book is devoted to Laurie and Amy’s relationship. In fact no one including Greta has truly done the characters justice. Every single version has left out important character points about every single character. I will say I love that the relationship was developed more in this version than others, but I don’t think she really understands these characters.
Also I thought Emma Watson was terrible in this.
@@theurelita well i hope you find it nice to hear that in the books he indeed took his time to heal. After Amy told him he was lazy he got mad at her and never saw her again. It’s in this time he realized his feelings for Jo weren’t that deep and his relationship with Amy went for a whole path before he even admitting to himself he loved her. 👌🏾👌🏾
You forgot to mention something really important. Everyone loves Jo, but the book gives justice to all of the sisters. Amy actually is similar to one of her actual sisters that become one of the author's bestfriends. All sisters are important in the story.
I agree. It wouldn't be called "Little Women." It's a balance which I really admire.
@@jeiraeth I agree, it’s is certainly difficult to make justice to all four of the sisters characters but the book is such a masterpiece that it managed to make every girl shine in their own way, and give them their own space and time so that us readers are able to notice how truly four of them are the protagonists, no one is more important than the other. And it’s interesting to see how each director in each different adaptation works with that and manages to make it work.
Unfortunately not Meg. Emma Watson is a flat overly precious actor and they turned the character into someone who grapples with whether or not to buy a dress for half the movie. As the oldest sister of three I’d like a more fleshed out Meg for once. ‘94 is the closest.
Absolutely! I always said that Little Women doesn't have one main character. It has four.
I feel like the movie does injustice to Beth because she’s just a darling in the book
I love how Greta was able to completely change the ending without changing a single word from the book. She keeps it just ambiguous enough if you want to keep the happy romantic ending, but clear enough to lampshade and comment on how the original ending was always a product of its time. She was able to have her cake and eat it too and it’s just brilliant. It’s an adaptation made specifically for fans of the book, it changes nothing and still changes everything
Well, many think that she made it so you can't really believe the happy romantic ending option without feeling stupid, because she made the way she got with Bhaer in the end, and their relationship, stupid and corny. Obviously if Jo DID fall for Bhaer in the end, it wouldn't be like some sappy romantic comedy. It would be more like the subdued realization in the 94 version, and about her finding an intellectual equal who was also a really good guy. So basically you can't believe that she ended up with Bhaer in this version unless you want to infantilize Jo, which I don't think Greta wanted to do of course. This version almost mocks people who opt to still believe the romantic ending version (even though the book itself did not make a mockery of it). So these scenes of her chasing Bhaer are really just supposed to be fake I think -- playing out the scenes that would satisfy the publisher. However, as much as I like the idea of the climax being her publishing the book, keeping the copyright, and staying unmarried in all likelihood -- I don't really like the way she gave us glimpses into the possible connection between Jo and Bhaer, throwing a hottie like Garrel in our face, only to drop his character from relevance without any explanation for why Jo decided she doesn't really like the guy or has no interest in talking to him anymore.
@@victoire614 I couldn’t disagree more. I think this version still allows for the nuance of Jo finding an intelectual equal, it just focuses more on the true core and heart of the original story which is the sisterly relationships. I don’t think that stating the truth: that the original ending was done to appeal to the masses, is in any way mocking it, it’s just lampshadinng it. I like that the ending Can either be considered as Jo finding happiness in her life again, and as Jo’s imaginary romantic book ending so I find it fairly balanced between the fantasy and realistic endings.
@@susanalopez5052 No, the more compelling theory is that Jo is in fact a lesbian (as was LMA), never had romantic feelings for any man, not even Bhaer, and the whole ending with Bhaer is fake. There's tons of evidence for this in the film and in interviews with Greta. Sorry that it's not fun for heterosexual cis women but Jo is not the protagonist that people have made her out to be. Greta was fulfilling LMA's own written true wishes for Jo's story.
@@victoire614 woah calm down, I don’t even think the profesor and Jo are a compelling couple. And I certainly agree that that Jo being queer is the best and most compelling theory, and I agree that Greta certainly does lean into one theory more than the other. But just don’t think that the remake even mocks or degrades the original forced ending. Pokes fun at it sure, lampshades it sure, calls it out for being forced, absolutely. But your original comment came across as if Greta was disrespectfully mocking the audience for believing one over the other, and in that I really do disagree
@@susanalopez5052 i see your comments under plenty little women videos and i always agree with what u have to say!
Actually we DO know that LMA didn't want Jo married. She says so in her letters, and says she regrets giving into the pressure of the culture of her time, adding that "Jo should have remained a literary spinster."
the historical case of doing fan service
I like that Jo and Laurie's relationship is framed as friendship and gives Amy much more depth. I love the final scene showing Jo opening her school. You can choose to believe Jo got married but either way, it doesn't matter, she gets her happy ending.
@Caitlyn Carvalho no, he is not.
@Caitlyn Carvalho he is not depicted as seductive, but a childhood playmate, a true friend, a lovesick teen, a sweet, sensitive boy who loves tending to flowers in his greenhouse, a lonely feminine kid who gets made fun of for being lonely and feminine. Are those part of that trope? (I don’t think so)
The "break up" scene of the 2019 version is more heartbreaking to watch. I felt not only Laurie's pain of not getting Jo's love but also Jo's heartbreak of losing their friendship. Chalamet and Ronan brought their A game in this scene
I’m outnumbered but I loved the Winona Ryder version but each has wonderful scenes and acting
Felt hammed
"And while we don't know if this was the case..."
It was. Louisa May Alcott wanted Jo to remain single by the conclusion of the novel, but her editor and fans of the first half of the book pressured her into marrying the character off. With this scene, Greta wanted to make commentary on what Louisa faced, and honor her story as well as the story of her fictional protagonist. This adaptation of Little Women explored the grey area between Louisa May Alcott and Jo March, as the novel is semi-autobiographical, and Jo is very much a stand-in for Louisa. Personally, I adore how Greta wrote this adaptation.
The fact that Greta's choice to not marry Jo in the end of the movie provokes such strong aversion from so many people just goes to show how much people haven't changed in their subconscious expectations of what happiness is for women since the 1800s...
@Rusty Kinks I do not fully agree. I think there is plenty of feminist readings to be applied to the classics (I myself have been thinking a lot about EM Forster's women recently). And outside of what there is in the actual works, I think there is also room for reimagining old stories in new contexts. They would have to say something more than "look it's X but with female protagonists", but a starship troopers approach is always interesting. Or Hadestown, which manages to weave a lot of progressive ideas into the story of a woman whose only function in the original myth was to die.
We must move on, of course, and what we have behind us will not give us radically new ideas, but it can move along with our times in its own way.
@@victoire614 i loved this change that greta made
I finally finished reading Little Women yesterday and was so put off by the unsatisfying ending for Jo. Watching the 2019 movie brought me peace. 10/10 would watch it over and over again.
Who does Jo marry in the books again? I’ve read them all, but when I was 9 so I don’t remember how it ended.
i really liked your observation about the differences between "laurie proposes to jo" scenes from the different adaptations. Imo, gerwig's adaptation is the only one that actually does the book justice and frames it as a somewhat selfish and immature move on laurie's part and centers the tragedy around Jo's frustration at seeing her childhood friendship ruined by the pressures of marriage and adulthood. The other versions are sad and sweet, but they tend to focus on Laurie's romantic heartbreak and as a result, Jo's valid concerns about marriage with Laurie don't make a ton of sense and the audience is left a little confused as to why Jo (and the author) are rejecting what appears to be the most obvious romantic pairing. When they're walking around and arguing and Laurie is acting a little comical and immature (as in the book and the 2019 version), Jo's statement that they'd "quarrel" and be "miserable" makes sense and the audience appreciates that Jo is making a difficult, but ultimately correct decision. When they're cuddling together under a tree and quietly saying everything to each other whilst soft music plays in the background, the audience is told that they aren't a good match, but don't really see much evidence of it.
I loved this video, and I agree with you on pretty much everything, but I kind of wish you also said something about Gerwig's handeling of Amy's character. I think it's partly due to Florence Pugh's fantastic acting and portrayal of the character, but I do feel like Gerwig was the first writer of one of the adaptions that truly understood Amy as a character, as a youngest sister, as who she is. Amy finally felt like an actual person that you could love and relate to or at least understand. To me, personally, that is one of the big reasons this adaption stands out to me.
I’ve always loved Amy better than Jo and I agree with you.
Yes!! This is the first version of the movie that made me love and appreciate Amy.
Amy mArch was an endearing character in the 1994 film...This Amy from 2019 is awful...almost intolerable.
@@mikejunior211 why are you even here? like genuinely all you're doing is shitting on the 2019 film in EVERY single positive comment. go watch a video about how good the 94 version is if you're too stuck in your millennial ways to see how good THIS film is. weirdo.
This!! I never liked Amy until Greta did her justice and then finally as a younger sister I could actually relate to her. It also made her and Laurie’s relationship make more sense and why they ended up together.
Gerwig's adaptation is the only Little Women that I've experienced, so watching clips side by side with other adaptations is a new experience for me. Obviously I'm biased, but Gerwig really has done something special with this story. Great video.
I found it weird. I went to see the movie with my parents, and my mom didn’t love it. I loved it, but my mom told me she didn’t like it because she has already experienced little women multiple times before.
I've seen multiple. Gerwigs is the best to be honest.
I grew up with the 1994 one. But Gerwig goes beyond the book and updates it for a modern audience without making it a modern movie.
Gerwig did a good job but I still prefer the 2007 BBC miniseries.
My preference is for the 1994 version. The cast is far superior, the costuming impeccable, the scenery perfect, and the score exceptional. The 2019 version is lacking heart and is sloppy overall.
Pardon my asking, but if this is the only version you've seen, how do you know Greta did something special? I mean, it was fine, but not better than most of the other versions.
Each adaptation is a reflection of the time in which it was created, attuned to the tastes and cultural mores of the current audience and the filming styles and limitations of the day. You couldn't and wouldn't make a film like Gerwig's in 1949. Preference is going to be affected by what's familiar or what's nostalgic to the viewer.
Exactly. It’s interesting how biased we are. I watched them in order in January, at least I tried. I couldn’t get through 15 minutes of the third one and got quite surprised that other people loved it so much. Is it because that’s what’s familiar? Just a matter of taste? I’ll have to try it again sometime. I guess that jump from the 40s to the 90s is a bit jarring so I might just have to adjust appropriately.
@@RomanZolanski123 Odd, since the 1994 is by far the best. You should give it another shot.
@@petalchild It really is.
Yes but I still don’t think most directors and screenwriters today could have made it such a great modern take as close to perfect as Greta did in her version
exactly. I feel like people who like the 1994 version the best is because they are used to it and it's nostalgic and it's what they grew up with- and that's definitely me with some other films. I hadn't seen any version before the 2019 one and I didn't even know other versions existed, and the 2019 is my favorite.
The chemistry between timothee chalamet and saorise Ronan is incredible. I truly have never seen anything like it. They’re both such incredible young actors and they work so well together especially in this movie. Their bond seems to transcend time
that’s definitely got something to do with that they’ve worked together before!
you may say that but i think the majority will agree, especially millennials and boomers will agree that the 94 version is way better. i mean come on, you cant go wrong with winona ryder, clare danes, kirsten dunst, and Christian bale.
no one enjoyed the jumping back and forth in time time that the 2019 had. it was too out of place and hard to keep up with
They're really good friends in real life!
@@iknowexactlywhoyouare8701 Honestly if you can’t tell that there was time skips with the extreme colour difference in the scenes, were you even paying attention? It was painfully obvious from the beginning what was going on in the past and what was currently happening.
As someone who experienced a similar confession like Jo, Gerwig's adaptation is much more realistic and just as much dramatic. The distance between the characters, the pushing and awkwardly approaching is just how it is. Something shatters and you try to ignore it - keep distance, and also desperately try to comfort the other while know that would just increase their pain.
i think the subtle change between jo responding with "they're not empty" instead of "not empty now" is brilliant. It makes the line seem so much realer and less scripted, making Jo seem more vulnerable and emotional
It was then that they realized... they were no longer little girls... They were little women...
* sobs *
Moe 😢
I like how they humanized Amy.
Me too! I’ve watched Amy’s speech on marriage over and over because it is so well done and really explains her characters motivation so well
Yup.
I've seen all 4 versions, and while I will forever hold the 1994 version closest to my heart, I cannot deny that Gerwig's version is FANTASTIC. I especially appreciate her fleshing out Laurie/Amy's relationship, because NO OTHER VERSION gives them justice, aside from the novel (which I've read several times).
Fully agree
I find it funny that you say we can never know Alcott's true intentions for Jo, because we kind of do--not in the Little Women series, but in its (darker, sadder) sequel series (Little Men and Jo's Boys). In that, we get a whole cast of orphans from Jo's school to follow, one of which is a young girl named Nan who has a suspiciously similar romantic trajectory to Jo, Laurie, and Amy. She goes on to be happily single while working in the medical field. ;)
Goddamit I'm reading Jo's boys and I just fell into a spoiler...anyways I'm happy for Nan, Tommy seemed too sensitive for her and I never shipped her with any other boy.
But we also see a very different outcome in Rose in Bloom, where Archie is representative of the Laurie character, and Mac is the Thoreau/Goethe/Professor character. Guess who ended up with Rose? Louisa ardently decried the public's desire to hook Laurie up with Jo. She meant Jo for Fritz, and in case readers thought she didn't mean it, she did it again in Rose in Bloom.
That statement that "we can never know" is incorrect. Louisa's subsequent writings (in letters, etc.) make it clear that she absolutely did not intend for Jo to get married; rather, she wanted Jo to remain single, but her publisher knew the public would want her to get married in the end. So Louisa bowed to the pressure, but later regretted it. This is well documented.
That's so interesting that Nan worked in the medical field! Louisa May Alcott was herself a civil war nurse, so...
Alcott's _Little Women_ is a "problem text" in some ways due to the ending being the result of conflict between Alcott and the publisher, with Alcott's resistance to pairing Jo and Laurie leading to their respective pairings with Bhaer (who Alcott herself, in later correspondence, seemed to regard as a bit of a joke) and Amy. Basically every film/TV adaptation after the Hepburn/Cukor one made substantial revisions to the Bhaer character to make him a more palatable love interest for the heroine (typically making him younger and sexier). However, Gerwig's is the first adaptation I can think of where there's clearly been a lot of thought put into reframing the story to emphasize the Amy/Laurie pairing. The non-linear storytelling is crucial to this, as we first see Laurie when Amy meets him in Paris and we're informed upfront that Jo turned Laurie down, and then this strand of the 'modern' setting is organized around Amy and Laurie's interactions in Paris, something that, in a linear setting, would not happen until the second half of the film.
Colonel Green I’d argue that making Bhaer younger and sexier doesn’t necessarily endear him to the audience, as the only version where I found Jo’s relationship with Bhaer bland and the stereotypical „wow man and woman look at each other, now they’re obviously true love” story. People think the only way to make Jo marrying Bhaer bearable (pun not intended) is to narrow their age gap and call it a day, when there’s so much more to it than that. Likewise, Amy and Laurie are actually very sweet together if the audience had bothered to see Amy as anything more than a consolation prize. For centuries, LW readers have been parroting the same „Bhaer is a joke/Amy is a second choice” argument like a nightmare echo chamber without actually looking deeper into it, I’m tired of it.
Do you mean Amy and Laurie's interactions in Paris? I don't recall Jo ever being in Paris. However, I agree that Gerwig does a great job at Amy and Laurie's dynamic-but i'd also say that the prior adaptations ignored the written dynamic of the pairing as well. Gerwig overall more focuses on Amy as a figure of feminism that takes things from a separate feminist approach than Jo.
In the book, I thought Laurie and Amy as a pair were fantastically written, mainly because Laurie finds he has reason to love Amy, she coddles him but doesn't let him do whatever he wants. Amy is grieving the loss of Beth, and Laurie is maturing from his wanting a music career. They fall in love at a point where Amy's distracted from her ambitions and in a vulnerable state, and Laurie has grown up enough to approach her (not to mention has missed the sense of family he got from the March family), and wants her company.
I think Gerwig gave more sense to Jo's character. And gave amy and laurie's relationship justice. The previous films portrayed Jo as much more poised than makes sense. Insisted on never marrying and loved her creativity and liberty too much, but created too much romantic connection between her and Laurie. The story makes more sense if his love is unrequited and Jo's romantic thoughts of him are rooted in brief loneliness and nothing else. While i would have preferred jo to not have married by the end, Friedrich was still a much better match for her. Because Jo didnt have to compromise who she was. And Gerwig's way of portraying it makes it very fulfilling--giving the impression that Jo truly did stay true to her character.
That Gerwig + Saoirse combo is perfection. Looking forward to seeing their careers progress. Lovely movie.
you may say that but i think the majority will agree, especially millennials and boomers will agree that the 94 version is way better. i mean come on, you cant go wrong with winona ryder, clare danes, kirsten dunst, and Christian bale. at least all of the girls were casted by American actresses. no uggs there, either. no one enjoyed the jumping back and forth in time time that the 2019 had. it was too out of place and hard to keep up with
Except she cast Emma Watson..the most boring actor ever. Emma always plays Emma.
@@iknowexactlywhoyouare8701 Yeah, you just have no taste lol
the immediate juxtaposition between jo waking up to beth's recovery from her sickness and jo waking up to discover that beth has died is so impactful and only possible through the non-lineal storytelling. i wouldnt have it any other way.
I can never go back to the older versions after seeing the new one
I prefer the 90s version, there is more warmth in it and the music and costumes are superior to the newest version.
For me the new one has a warmth I like more compared to the others
try watching the korean version, it will make you cry by how wrong it is
@Yurnim isn't that one a completely different mystery drama though?
A perfect example of the fact that remakes do not have to be automatically inferior or needless. Gerwig's decision to fragment the timeline and play the present and the past off of each other was a masterstroke, and of course her filmmaking sensibilities did a lot to bring the story into the modern era in a way that never feels like it's TRYING to do that. Just a wonderful, wonderful film.
In my opinion, the 2019 version was one of my favourites, rivaled only by the 1994 version.
The pros of Gerwig's film were making Amy far more likeable and sympathetic than her other counterparts, fleshing out more scenes and characters, and by getting to meet the sisters while they're already older, and flashback to them when they're younger, the energy and brilliance of the cast.
The few cons would involve not getting to know Beth as well, since she's arguably overshadowed by her more outgoing sisters, and not mentioning the March's economic situation, since they were supposed to be living in poverty in the original story, yet this doesn't come across in the film.🎥😻
Trina Q well said! I like Thomas's analysis of the broader themes in the new version, but while watching the movie, I couldn't figure out how these girls were really struggling as they had independence, (seeming) wealth, beauty and love. The character development was therefore, weak, and in my opinion, relied on work done by previous versions in familiarising the audience with the characters' motivations.
They aren’t meant to poor in the sense that most other American poor were. They are simply fallen from the upper/middle class to something poorer but not necessarily very impoverished. Especially as it would make sense that they still are surrounded by a lot of things that come from the days when they WERE wealthy
Esta última versión de Mujercitas rescata en algo (la hace una verdadera luchadora con pensamiento propio y no sólo una niña arrogante y vanidosa) la historia fascinante e inédita de la hermana menor de May Alcott-Louisa y artista por derecho propio.
Todos conocemos la historia de las hermanas March, heroínas de las Pequeñas Mujeres de Louisa May Alcott . Pero mientras todos aplauden a Jo March, basada en la propia Louisa, Amy March es a menudo la hermana menos favorita. Ahora es el momento de aprender la verdad sobre la verdadera "Amy", la hermana de Louisa, May.
Elegante, sociable, creativa, May Alcott crece deseando experimentar el amplio mundo más allá de Concord, Massachusetts. Mientras su hermana Louisa hace manualidades, la propia May es una artista talentosa y dedicada, que toma clases en Boston, rechaza una propuesta de matrimonio de un pretendiente acomodado y se enfrenta al desprecio por ingresar a la profesión de hombre. (La autora de Mujercitas retrata muy mal a su hermana menor ya que sentía unos celos profundos del éxito social de su hermana ,tuvo en sus manos una pluma eficaz para una venganza sublime, hizo y hace odiar a su hermana por siglos
La vida para la familia Alcott nunca ha sido fácil, así que cuando se publica Louisa's Little Women , su éxito alivia las cargas financieras que habían enfrentado durante tantos años. Todos están de acuerdo en que la novela es encantadora, pero a May la impresiona la imagen de "Amy March" egoísta y consentida. ¿Es esto lo que su querida hermana realmente piensa de ella?
Así que May se embarca en una búsqueda para descubrir su propia identidad verdadera, como artista y como mujer. Desde Boston a Roma, Londres y París, esta mujer valiente, talentosa y decidida forja una vida propia increíble, convirtiéndola en mucho más que simplemente "The Other Alcott".
Amo a Abigail May Atcott (Amy) lucha para ocupar un lugar en un mundo de hombres sin renunciar a su femineidad, no se masculiniza como su hermana
@@A-G-A-G As an example to this, I think pride and prejudice shows really well the "noble-family-with-no-money"
@@A-G-A-G well said. especially when in the book, there is some even poorer family, meaning the Marches are not that bad
I love it when Theodore tries to tell Jo that he loves her but she keeps talking, trying to block him out. I love that scene with a passion I can't explain.
Poor Jo....awkwardness thing in the world when a guy had decided you're his one true love and the solution to all his problems and you're like "Hell no, honey you're delusional, I'm not any of that!"
The only movie I've repeatedly cried at. Five times total from beginning to end. I saw this at a very particular time in my life and it made me believe in the limitless possibility of young adulthood, especially as a young woman. An emotional cornucopia
❤
We saw it in theatre and came out bawling. The employee said dismally, “I’ve seen the ending a thousand times.” I was like, way to ruin my wallowing..
"An emotional cornucopia" love this
you may say that but i think the majority will agree, especially millennials and boomers will agree that the 94 version is way better. i mean come on, you cant go wrong with winona ryder, clare danes, kirsten dunst, and Christian bale. at least all of the girls were casted by American actresses. no uggs there, either. no one enjoyed the jumping back and forth in time time that the 2019 had. it was too out of place and hard to keep up with
Another subtle but brilliant piece of direction done by Gerwig is when Amy falls through the ice, we anticipate it is about to happen but we see Jo and Laurie fall, then comes Amy's cries for help. I was absolutely in awe when I saw that little directing choice and of course with all the other seamless intertwining of different stories which makes for great juxtaposition. Gerwig definitely should have been nominated for directing instead of Todd Philips
I like Gerwig’s version because all the other films treat the rest of the sisters as background characters, when they deserve just as much spotlight as Jo
you may say that but i think the majority will agree, especially millennials and boomers will agree that the 94 version is way better. i mean come on, you cant go wrong with winona ryder, clare danes, kirsten dunst, and Christian bale. at least all of the girls were casted by American actresses. no uggs there, either. no one enjoyed the jumping back and forth in time time that the 2019 had. it was too out of place and hard to keep up with
@@iknowexactlywhoyouare8701 never seen that version, nostalgia is a drug
I’ve only watched Greta’s and the 2017 miniseries and one thing I want to comment on is how Beth was portrayed in the miniseries. I think the shorter run time of the movie didn’t allow for much time for Beth’s growth to be shown, but her portrayal in the series was amazing, from seeing her taking steps despite her anxiety, just how sick she became, and her death being the only onscreen death to ever make me cry!
I loved Beth in that miniseries and was devastated when she died 😢
As a young women (now 21)I loved the 2019 version bc it felt like it was about Jo's life and not about romance. This version and the 1995 I think are the best in the sense that the actors look closer to the ages the characters were supposed to be, which is part of what made the 2019 version of Laurie's confession feel so real. This is in addition to the way they spoke, their body language, how Jo actually looks awkward vs prim and proper when she tells him she couldn't live in elegant society, and their emotions, everything felt so real. Not only that but the other movie seemed to sympathize for Laurie more than portraying Jo's position. As a young woman, having just read the book in 2020 and watched the movies after, I related far more to the 2019 movie and felt like it hit the spirit of the book. A big reason to that was bc of the scene where Jo explains her desire for love while wanting to achieve more than just a relationship, not wanting a romantic relationship but still feeling so lonely, I FELT that. That was one thing the book covered on a subconscious level. I also loved how Jo represented both Jo and Ms. Louisa May Alcott by the book publishing scenes. One other thing that I couldn't be more happy about was how the latest movie was feminist without putting down the men. You were still able to love Laurie and Prof. Bear. (Barre? Idk) it was great, 10/10.
Great video, but just want to point out that Jo’s engagement/marriage to Fredrich doesn’t just happen in the in-movie book. However, I do agree that Gerwig stands alone in her assertion that Jo’s ultimate success is her book, not her marriage, and it is definitely a commentary in previous adaptations to not have that scene be the conclusion of the film. In the last chapter of the book, we jump forward to see Jo and Fredrich running a school for boys out of Aunt March’s house, which Jo inherits. This is the same in the movie, we catch a glimpse of Fredrich teaching music while Jo is bringing the cake out to Marmie, and they share a look and a few words that we aren’t able to hear, but their body language is very open. When the sisters present the cake to Marmie, their husbands (John, Laurie, and Fredrich) walk up behind them to join in the family tableau. It might not be apparent to someone who hasn’t read the book, but Gerwig remains very faithful to the original text. Jo is still independent and well rounded, but she is also married. I think the publisher scene was a nod to Alcott’s resistance to the marriage plot in the real book, but it’s not a rewriting of the ending.
Interesting point!
Going by the script, I think the status of Jo and Friedrich is meant to be ambiguous, i.e., it's a bit of a "you can read it either way" situation that incorporates both the actual book Alcott wrote and the meta-history behind the novel (where we know it wasn't Alcott's preferred ending). So it's unclear whether the Plumfield sequence is just part of the in-universe book or what's actually happening.
Colonel Green that makes sense too. I think Marmie and the father are handing out copies of Jo’s book at Plumfield (I could be wrong, there might just be some books on their table), but that was I assumed this was happening outside of Jo’s book. Geez, it’s confusing to write about a book in a movie about that book based on a real book!
Colonel Green and it makes sense that it’s intentionally ambiguous! It’s still way more progressive than the definitive marriage plots in previous adaptations
Ian Doten I don’t understand why Jo being married is supposedly „less feminist”. She’s not portrayed as having to give up anything about herself to get married (opening the school was actually her idea, not her husband’s, and they ran the school using the mansion she inherited from her aunt. The whole thing was helmed by her, her husband only helped teach). Furthermore in the sequel novels they’re clearly shown to be very happy. If Louisa had wanted she could’ve simply killed Friedrich off or made him a non-entity (the way Jo’s father was), but she didn’t. I’m just baffled by this wildly popular interpretation that Jo not being married is somehow feminist. Wouldn’t the fact that she married out of love AND is happy in an age where women often had to contend with less than satisfactory husbands, what’s truly feminist here?
Greta Gerwig breathed new life into the story, no doubt about that.
you may say that but i think the majority will agree, especially millennials and boomers will agree that the 94 version is way better. i mean come on, you cant go wrong with winona ryder, clare danes, kirsten dunst, and Christian bale. at least all of the girls were casted by American actresses. no uggs there, either. no one enjoyed the jumping back and forth in time time that the 2019 had. it was too out of place and hard to keep up with
The ONE thing that the 1994 version has over Gerwig's is that gorgeous Thomas Newman score. Not that it would necessarily fit with what Gerwig is doing, but it's just such a lush, warm, memorable score. The score in the 2019 adaptation is a bit unremarkable, imo.
Yes, I agree totally. Thomas Newman’s ‘Little Women’ score is so magical and memorable and nothing comes close to it. I can make myself cry just by remembering the piano theme when Beth dies. It breaks my heart every time.
@@Karliene It's so beautiful. I listen to it all the time.
I've also heard a lot about how costumes were more historically accurate and believable in 1994 version
I much more prefer the 90s version on most aspects.
@@asinicw9906 yea, the costumes of the 2019 version were a historical hot mess
Is it me or does the 1949 version look gorgeous? That proposal scene with the blurry forest background behind their gleaming white dress and suit is absolutely stunning. Might watch it just because of that shot.
12:23 We can't know for sure, but there is some evidence supporting that Alcott never wanted Jo to get married, I highly recommend looking up the story about Little Womens debut. Personally, I'm really glad Greta included Alcott's publishing struggles in the movie.
I think you struck a nerve there about the ending, as she says it "she says the whole book she dont want to marry"
I liked Greta Gerwig’s version quite a bit, but I personally enjoy the Wynona Rider version a little bit more. Maybe it’s because I grew up with it and have nostalgia for it.
Gerwig’s version certainly had things I enjoyed more, mainly the ending and Teddy’s confession time Jo. I do think people hyped up Gerwig’s version to be one of the greatest things ever put on a screen, while I just think it very good.
Agreed, I love both the 2019 and the 1994 versions equally, especially how Gerwig offered up a fresh perspective with her version, such as leaving it up to the audience's imagination whether Jo married Friedrich or not. 👰
probally other comment already pointed this out but, at 3:05 in the anime version Laurie says he beated up some guys to stop calling him Dora, that is actually just what he says in the book! so it sounds weird but its accurate still :)
the change of colors/lighting between past/present is ughhhhh i love it
Little Women was my #3 movie of the year. It was also my first experience with Little Women. I'd never read the book, I knew previous adaptations had been done but had never seen one, I knew that the main character's name was Jo and the family was named March. That was the extent of my knowledge. And I absolutely adored the film. I thought it was brilliant. I saw it three times in theaters.
I watched the newest version first but then after reading the book the '94 version feels right to me. I love the kind of theater kid/writer feeling you get there. Also, the costumes were much better. However, the ending of the newest version is truly fantastic.
The same here. I think also in the new version, even though I loved the ending twist, I think there should be a deeper analysis into why the ages of the girls were changed, as in the book Amy is the youngest one, not Beth... and I really loved the cast of 1994 for this!
I grew up with the 1994 one and loved it dearly all my life, I never thought anything could beat it until I saw Greta Gerwig's version and sobbed the whole way through, I've always found the film and novel struck a personal and emotional cord with me but her version hit even closer to home.
The 1994 version is my favorite. I think it’s the most true to the book in terms of Alcott’s intentions. But I’m sure Alcott would’ve gotten a kick out of the 2019’s version as well!
Gerwig’s film is absolutely incredible. Seriously one of the best films I’ve seen.
you may say that but i think the majority will agree, especially millennials and boomers will agree that the 94 version is way better. i mean come on, you cant go wrong with winona ryder, clare danes, kirsten dunst, and Christian bale. at least all of the girls were casted by American actresses. no uggs there, either. no one enjoyed the jumping back and forth in time time that the 2019 had. it was too out of place and hard to keep up with
@@iknowexactlywhoyouare8701 speak for yourself. I thought the flashback structure heightened the emotions and gave good context for the scenes in the future. It’s really not hard to follow, I think. The colors on screen literally change from past to present. Nobody I know had a hard time following
@@iknowexactlywhoyouare8701 did you really find it hard to follow? I’ve seen some critics say this and then not say the same about movies like inception lol
it could be the ones that came before didn't even have the technology to make so many scenes with as much movement.
Was just about to comment that.
This is a very thoughtful piece on what Gerwig brought to the new adaptation of Alcott's book. Another RUclips creator, Micarah Tewers put out what was a mainly comedic, but also very credible analysis of the 2019's Oscar winning costumes. Tewers explains that while beautiful in appearance, Jacqueline Durran's poor costume choices subliminally diminishes Gerwig's artistic intentions. The hodgepodge approach of Durran takes away what the March family stood for, and why that stance was important. Maybe Durran had a fantastical, "unconventional" philosophy to the costuming, and it's a bad decision to me. Through the movie, either we are grounded in the harsh realities of what marriage meant (Amy's big, showstopper monologue) and defying the publishing norms (Jo's book), OR is the movie focusing on a symbolic attempt to revise the female experience? That's a tough call to pull off both, and Greta struggled with it. She had a surer vision in Ladybird (which I loved).
I personally definitely prefer Gerwig’s take narratively. But the costumes are so awful that they pull me out of the story. So I just can’t watch the movie all the way though- I get distracted by “what on earth is going on with her hair?” “Where is the crinoline?” “Why is her hair down?” “Is this supposed to take part in the 1870s or the 1970s?” (That last thought due to the boho chic wedding outfit worn by Meg).
And then I pause it and do t continue watching. I’ve tried to ignore the atrocious costuming, but I just can’t.
Also, love Micarah’s video. Bonnets!
That film deserved tons of awards (and it's a real shame how it was snobbed) but definitely not the Oscar for best costume.
The music from the 1994 version is unparalleled
just realised i now need a video comparing the costuming of each version now
I was one of the dancers in the 1994 adaptation, which was filmed in Vancouver, BC, Canada. At 2:32, dancer on the far right (I was a natural brunette back then).
Everything Great did with her adaptation is just RIGHT! She captured the true meaning of the book in the most beautiful and emotional way. She's an amazing director.
1994 was better honestly
you may say that but i think the majority will agree, especially millennials and boomers will agree that the 94 version is way better. i mean come on, you cant go wrong with winona ryder, clare danes, kirsten dunst, and Christian bale. at least all of the girls were casted by American actresses. no uggs there, either. no one enjoyed the jumping back and forth in time time that the 2019 had. it was too out of place and hard to keep up with
Greta's movie is such a work of art, there's so many little details that just make you want to watch the movie over and over again. I like how this one had a lot of symbolism. Like for example how every sister always wears one color (Jo's is red, Amy's blue, etc.) but Marmee always wears all of their colors.
The best part I like about 2019 adaption is Laurie's confession to Jo scene. Laurie was such a gentleman there
This movie is so close to my heart simply because how Joe got her ending as a successful, single and happy woman. I loved the dialogue she has with marmee about women being so much more than just fit for love. I identify with Joe so much, as do so many other women. The first time I saw the movie, I assumed Joe was married at the end. But the ambiguity was more obvious the second time and I was blown away. It was then that this movie gathered a special place in me forever.
The 1994 is my favorite one. It’s mostly the costumes that are a pet peeve for me in the 2019 version.
I went in blind watching this movie, didn't know the story and hadn't seen any of the other adaptations. I was so upset that Laurie and Jo didn't end up together (being the hopeless romantic that I am), and that proposal scene broke my heart, but I still loved the movie anyway.
Same 😊
Read the book. It's even better.
words cannot describe the love I have for the 2019 version. I understand why some people had objections to it, but personally, I adore every single part of it
I still remember the first time I saw my story published in a book, it was merely a compilation of 20 best stories from upcoming authors, my story was the first one, my name in top, to see it all printed out with words that I spent countless nights thinking, writing, erasing, typing, in that moment I couldn't help but cry, it was beautiful, it was perfect, it was the reasoning of my presence in this world, it was mine.
The ending was amazing, it showed that Jo didn’t want to be with Professor Bhaer but added him to her book bc of her publisher which is exactly what happened in real life
Even when reading the book, the ending felt weird. Reading Jo in love didn’t feel right, it felt off and finding out it was a pushed inclusion by the publisher was very telling
Contrary to many of the other commenters, I found that I cried less over Beth in the Gerwig version, simply because she got the least focus of the four girls. She felt very two-dimensional to me, so I didn't mourn her the way I mourned the other versions.
Most of the reviews I've watched just stated how the 2019 adaptation strayed from the original plot and sequence of the novel. A retelling of a story doesn't necessarily have to strictly adhere to it's parent story, but rather tell it in a way where it still has the essence of the original and a fresh taste of originality. It felt right for Gerwig to take the artistic liberty in this movie not only in the story, but in its cinematography. Like this video essay had stated, this version was most suitable for people who had already been familiarized with past versions, but is still watchable for those who have not. Gerwig plays and evokes emotions in her adaptation and because of it, this is one of my favorite movies. It kinda deserved better lmfaoo but it's aight
The way jo holds the book close to her, it's like her baby, it is her baby, equally valid as meg's babies
1994 adaptation will always be very dear to my heart and the best for me with Teddy and Jo , can clearly see the love and emotions deeply Throughout the whole movie . And I just loved the cast ! ❤❤ but the latest version has some very great scene aswell .
I saw this movie in theaters with my mother at Christmastime and since then its become one of our favorites. As someone who grew up with lots of sisters, it perfectly captured the energy of everyone talking over each other and the bond between a mother and her daughters. It makes me cry everytime I rewatch it, well done Greta!
The 2019 version was my first introduction to the story and I loved it
I still like the 1994 winona ryder adaptation. The actors were age-appropriate to their roles. And the movie didnt cut back and forth confusingly as the new one does.
And meryl streep snorring .... LoL
Also I like how the new version elevated the story and also made it a bit more modern
One of the things I adored about the 2019 version is the lighting. The change makes you notice the time is from their past instantly and its just so clever and a real representation of how you see the world when you are young, the light in your memories seems different and the present can seem more grey. Its just stunning
Oh call me old-fashioned, but I still like the Wynona Rider version best. I love how it was filmed, its color palette, the cast, everything. The actresses became those characters, whereas if I watch the Greta version, I can only see those actresses, not the characters. I suppose it just comes down to personal preference.
I think I took for granted the greatness of the film when I watched it... this video really made me appreciate Gerwig's version a whole lot more!
The 1994 Version is in my opinion the only true Version, I absolutely adore this one. The Film from 2019 has its moments, which are entirely outstanding and which make this Version really good, but some situations feel very contrived and are so then hard to bear, they creep me out, that's why I don't really stand behind this Production.
I'm taking non-linear mechanics in my master's and you said "a key aspect is the non-linear approach" and my fight or flight response activated lmao
Gillian Armstrong's version is my adored choice. Brilliantly directed, luscious in every way. I'm so charmed by it every time I watch. And Thomas Newman's score alone is reason to fall in love with it.
Oh and my favorite is the 94 version.
I cried from beginning to end. I love gerwigs movies, the music is beautiful the script is iconic and there is so much love and emotion behind it all
The 1994 version is my favorite movie of all time. 2019’s unfortunately let me down but my expectations were very high… and we all know expectations are just planned disappointments 😏
this was a great case study on adaptations, would love to see more of those. fantastic work thomas.
I'm not good with film analysis, but there's just something about 2019 that has so much life to it.
I grew up with the 1994 version and love it but this new version by Greta, is now my favourite one! I loved how she change the structure and benefited Amy bc I've always thought that she was misunderstood by the others adaptations.
Your title obviously means "best adaption of Little Women," but I think it has a case for best film adaptation of any novel period. It does such a good job of capturing the spirit of a book while not being overly beholden to the specifics of that book. My personal short list of best film adaptions of novel includes Fight Club, No Country for Old Men, and Lord of the Rings, and this blows all of them away.
Really?
Im not being caddy- i haven't seen the film- im honestly curious
Better than the shining, the godfather, shindler's list, shawshank redemption, there will be blood?
Youve caught my interest so I'll prolly go watch it
You really think its that good?
@@TOAOM123 I can’t even begin wrapping my head around how to compare Little Women and The Shining. But, you just gave 4 examples of great movies of novels I’ve never read. In part, I’m saying the film is amazing and I loved it. I’m also saying that it makes amazingly good choices about how it adapts that material, and that’s often a weak spot for adaptions. Although, I would take Little Women over Shawshank, Schindler’s list, and the Shining , for sure. It’s been waaaaaay too long since my single viewing of The Godfather, so I won’t pass judgement there.
@@zehhet I reread the book this year, and watched all 4 major film adaptations, and I'm very impressed with what Gerwig chose to include and expand upon, especially in comparison with the others
Yes the 2019 one was really good and I liked it, but the 1994 version with Winona Rider has a special place in my heart.
The 2017 version was my favourite BY FAR
Be Kind Rewind did a video on this topic that is very good.
I saw the anime version on T.V. when I was little. It came in episodes and I only watched a few. I was so sad when I watched the movies that Beth died and was shocked when Amy married Laurie.
Still haven’t seen it. But I’ve only heard incredible things from fans of the book about how closely the 2019 film matches the images they’d always had in their heads of the world and its characters.
I'd definitely recommend watching it, as offers a unique take on a story told so many times, and it boosts a talented, remarkable cast, plus a wonderful director! 🎥💕
Jo does marry the professor in new version. He is there in the ending with the school. She is just dramatizing it’s for the publisher and wanted originally to leave it out since she didn’t think she had to marry.
I’ve never seen Amy’s character fleshed out and explained so well as in Greta Gerwigs version! The pressure from Aunt March to support the family and societies expectations for her are portrayed so effectively
the 1994 one is the first version i saw as a child and loved it because it gave me fond memories and gave faces to the characters i read in the book. whenever i re-read little women, i cant help but imagine jo as winona ryder, laurie as christian bale, marmee as susan sarandon, and all the other 1994 cast. i also liked the 2019 one--it was a superior adaptation by the points mentioned in this essay, but i cant help liking 1994 more based on the fond memories it gave me (perhaps in this case, first love never dies). also, i liked that in the 1994 one, amy was played by kirsten dunst who was an actual child at the time. it was just a bit jarring to watch adult florence pugh act the part of a vain, coddled, immature supposed little girl, amy. pugh is a great actor without a doubt, but the character amy was supposed to be a little girl in the earlier part of this story and it takes me away that she wasn't played by one.
please watch the 2017 PBS miniseries!
The 1933, 1949, and 1994 all bring something wonderful to the audience. They reflect the time that they were filmed and when the book was written. It would be unfair to dismiss them. The 1977 tv miniseries was great, and the first adaptation that a ever saw. Sadly, the two silent adaptations are now considered to be lost.
I love the way the new version is adapted with all the movement, development of characters, the performances, and how it plays with the timeline giving it more emotion to each scene. Nevertheless, the version that brings me most to the historic time, as well as the one that feels more realistic to me is the one from 1994, mainly because I think it reflects Jo and her sisters as a free spirit family, yet it doesn´t exaggerate some of their attitudes as I think it does in the new one, giving it a little more credibility to the story considering the times. Honestly, I can´t decide which one I like most, but I think I can say I enjoy more the new one but feel 1964s is more realistic and can truly make you feel you're there.
please watch the 2017 PBS miniseries!
Maybe it's because I grew up watching the film, but the 1949 adaptation will always be the best in my opinion.
Great analysis
Speak for yourself. I love 94’ version 💅
6:15 ❤