Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 3:26:19 GMT
Its the kond of movie Greta Thunberg would like and it looks terrible AF. Women with their spoon gagging 1st world problems
|
|
|
Post by onethreetwo on Nov 27, 2019 3:32:15 GMT
No it doesn't. *rolls eyes*
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2019 12:48:11 GMT
Well it's like a girl is struggling with her desire to pursue a career on stage and needs encouragement from a friend. What a privileged and gratuitous life!
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Nov 28, 2019 13:36:38 GMT
Its the kond of movie Greta Thunberg would like and it looks terrible AF. Women with their spoon gagging 1st world problems You do realize, don't you, that women were basically property at the time the book was written and had almost no rights to speak of? That "1st world problems" for them are third world problems for us? You do realize, don't you, that the book's author was an open feminist and likely gay or bi?
To have a film adaptation be anything but reflective of the book's feminism would be a disservice to all the author's intentions and to one of the main reasons the book is a classic to begin with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2019 15:15:44 GMT
Its the kond of movie Greta Thunberg would like and it looks terrible AF. Women with their spoon gagging 1st world problems You do realize, don't you, that women were basically property at the time the book was written and had almost no rights to speak of? That "1st world problems" for them are third world problems for us? You do realize, don't you, that the book's author was an open feminist and likely gay or bi?
To have a film adaptation be anything but reflective of the book's feminism would be a disservice to all the author's intentions and to one of the main reasons the book is a classic to begin with.
I must realize this all on my own? Maybe the movie should just speak for itself, ya think?
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Nov 28, 2019 15:44:20 GMT
Frankenstein was written decades before this book and I doubt the author was considered property. It's true that in places like Pakistan women were seen (and still seen) as property but Western Europe was better for such things. There were even women as leaders of countries.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Nov 28, 2019 16:49:08 GMT
*kind*
|
|
|
Post by forca84 on Nov 28, 2019 17:24:49 GMT
Has anyone watched the recent miniseries to compare? I haven't watched any version besides the Winona one.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Nov 28, 2019 18:48:34 GMT
Has anyone watched the recent miniseries to compare? I haven't watched any version besides the Winona one. The one that aired on PBS last year? Didn't seem to be especially agenda-driven and it was pretty to look at, but overall I just found it rather blah.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Nov 29, 2019 14:59:22 GMT
I must realize this all on my own? Maybe the movie should just speak for itself, ya think? It isn't the movie's fault that you don't know anything about the history of American literature and decided to unload on it based on pure ignorance of the context in which it was made.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2019 15:08:46 GMT
I must realize this all on my own? Maybe the movie should just speak for itself, ya think? It isn't the movie's fault that you don't know anything about the history of American literature and decided to unload on it based on pure ignorance of the context in which it was made.
it isnt my fault they chose to play such a transparent veneer of terribly uplifting music for the trailer, complementing smiley stonefaced actresses hiding bad acting behind elegant British accents. The movie does a disservice to what is probably otherwise a pillar of classic English literature. And its english ya moron, not american.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Nov 29, 2019 17:50:18 GMT
well now I have to watch the trailer, see what you did there?
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Nov 29, 2019 18:09:01 GMT
It isn't the movie's fault that you don't know anything about the history of American literature and decided to unload on it based on pure ignorance of the context in which it was made.
it isnt my fault they chose to play such a transparent veneer of terribly uplifting music for the trailer, complementing smiley stonefaced actresses hiding bad acting behind elegant British accents. The movie does a disservice to what is probably otherwise a pillar of classic English literature. And its english ya moron, not american. who from the cast do you consider a bad actress?
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Nov 29, 2019 18:13:17 GMT
I like the Winona version and the story. This one does look interesting for a comparison, but what bothers me, it looks like it is pushing too much of a woke agenda. In context of the era, women didn't have the same voice as men, but I get the feeling that it looks like it is making a parallel from then, as though this is the same thing happening today. It is distorting with a shortsighted feminist agenda. I hope you are wrong as I also dont enjoy the heavyhanded feminist agenda of many modern movies and I hope this movie will not try to suggest that today and then women are treated in a similar way. ALTHOUGH, when i think of it, if one is an unmarried woman over 40, god forbid also childless, she is cosnidered a failed woman still, and the pressure on women to get married and have kids is real, seriously it exists. outside of family. strangers will put this pressure on you.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Nov 29, 2019 18:23:57 GMT
Frankenstein was written decades before this book and I doubt the author was considered property. It's true that in places like Pakistan women were seen (and still seen) as property but Western Europe was better for such things. There were even women as leaders of countries. yes they mave have been better off women such as an arristocrat born into the royal family and rising to power if All Males entitled before her had died, (thats what you are essentialy talking about right?) but for a regular woman these times were still very unequal even in Europe.. No voting rights, extremelly limited property rights no right to sue, if married all her earnings go to husband, very limited access to education, unfit for politics or independent decisions over her career or body, come on this all together is pretty bad.
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Nov 29, 2019 18:34:36 GMT
It isn't the movie's fault that you don't know anything about the history of American literature and decided to unload on it based on pure ignorance of the context in which it was made.
it isnt my fault they chose to play such a transparent veneer of terribly uplifting music for the trailer, complementing smiley stonefaced actresses hiding bad acting behind elegant British accents. The movie does a disservice to what is probably otherwise a pillar of classic English literature. And its english ya moron, not american.Authored by Louisa May Alcott Born: Nov 29, 1832 · Germantown, PA well known area of England
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Nov 29, 2019 18:39:13 GMT
yes they mave have been better off women such as an arristocrat born into the royal family and rising to power if All Males entitled before her had died, (thats what you are essentialy talking about right?) but for a regular woman thise times were still very unequal. No voting rights, extremelly limited property rights no right to sue, if married all her earnings go to husband, very limited access to education, unfit for politics or independent decisions over her career or body, come on this all together is pretty bad. There was no equality because people were not (and still are not) equal in attribute. Those with merit tended to get rewarded. The first novel written in North America was written by a woman. The modern view is that merit does not matter, only equality does. This is why we see "Elizabeth Banks" types. They lack merit but they are being promoted front and center because they promote the "everyone is same in attribute" myth. Everyone is not the same in attribute. And you end up with elites again-but based no on social merit but adherence to ideology-whether it helps a society or not. Banks is certainly not among the best and the brightest.
Some people are smarter/faster/taller/lighter than others.
Ultimately the unfortunate reality is that
hard living makes society. Society makes soft living. Soft living destroys society.
This seems to be the trajectory.
It's not really logical to promote feminism and at the same time importing rape-based cultures. Fact is, Europe was far more accepting of matriarchal views BEFORE Oriental culture was imported. The Bible is Oriental--and look what that did for midwives.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Nov 29, 2019 19:01:30 GMT
yes they mave have been better off women such as an arristocrat born into the royal family and rising to power if All Males entitled before her had died, (thats what you are essentialy talking about right?) but for a regular woman thise times were still very unequal. No voting rights, extremelly limited property rights no right to sue, if married all her earnings go to husband, very limited access to education, unfit for politics or independent decisions over her career or body, come on this all together is pretty bad. There was no equality because people were not (and still are not) equal in attribute. Those with merit tended to get rewarded. The first novel written in North America was written by a woman. The modern view is that merit does not matter, only equality does. This is why we see "Elizabeth Banks" types. They lack merit but they are being promoted front and center because they promote the "everyone is same in attribute" myth. Everyone is not the same in attribute. And you end up with elites again-but based no on social merit but adherence to ideology-whether it helps a society or not. Banks is certainly not among the best and the brightest.
Some people are smarter/faster/taller/lighter than others.
Ultimately the unfortunate reality is that
hard living makes society. Society makes soft living. Soft living destroys society.
This seems to be the trajectory.
It's not really logical to promote feminism and at the same time importing rape-based cultures. Fact is, Europe was far more accepting of matriarchal views BEFORE Oriental culture was imported. The Bible is Oriental--and look what that did for midwives.
The fact that different individuals have different qualities in no way excludes or contradicts my statement that women as an entire gender had worse position in front of the law. So Not only in the eyes of the other people. those were not only oppressive social norms at that time but legal norms. So no, no matter how much merit a woman would have she still wouldn’t be allowed to vote etc. Today it’s different, we only have the social prejudice to face but at least the law treats us equally (to men). That in no way says anything about quality of individual women or compares their abilities to men’s it merely says that in the eye of law both men and women are equal in our part of the world. When Little Women were written that was not the case.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Nov 29, 2019 19:16:05 GMT
The fact that different individuals have different qualities in no way excludes or contradicts my statement that women as an entire gender had worse position in front of the law. So Not only in the eyes of the other people. those were not only oppressive social norms at that time but legal norms. So no, no matter how much merit a woman would have she still wouldn’t be allowed to vote etc. That depends what society you are talking about. If you mean a big city-then yes, children, orphans, also fared worse. Everyone did except the wealthy (although men of wealthy standing were expected to stay on the sinking Titanic-it would have been considered a cowardly disgrace for them to seek a lifeboat over the women just as they were expected to go to war and women were not--except in some societies like the Celts or Vikings). Someone like George W Bush would have been ridiculed by his peers and not let anywhere near a leadership position if he had lived 100 years earlier. He was too much of a mental/physical weakling.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Nov 30, 2019 13:34:02 GMT
It isn't the movie's fault that you don't know anything about the history of American literature and decided to unload on it based on pure ignorance of the context in which it was made.
it isnt my fault they chose to play such a transparent veneer of terribly uplifting music for the trailer, complementing smiley stonefaced actresses hiding bad acting behind elegant British accents. The movie does a disservice to what is probably otherwise a pillar of classic English literature. And its english ya moron, not american. Funny how none of this was even hinted at in your opening post, which was just you whining about politics in complete ignorance of the source material.
And by the way, moron: it is an American novel set in America, with no British accents anywhere to be heard. You didn't even watch it, did you? Or are you just brain damaged?
|
|