Post by spiderwort on Feb 2, 2020 14:27:14 GMT
There is also a 1933 version of Little Women with Katherine Hepburn. I have only seen the 94' and 19' versions.
I have seen the Armstrong version with Ryder a few times and watched it recently, so as a compare to Gerwig's version. I was knocked for a six by Gerwig's take and as much as I enjoy Armstrong's, Gerwig gave us a knockout presentation all round. Despite a few minor flaws, I could sense and feel the intelligence oozing from the screen. I did find the non-linear narrative a bit jarring at first, but then got used to it. This was a smart devise and it also makes one pay attention. It is fleshed out, it is exquisite and it is nuanced. It proves that Ronan is no flash in the pan as an actress and that Gerwig is a directorial talent to watch out for. Miles ahead of Lady Bird, that I felt underwhelmed by.
I will be looking forward to seeing Little Women again in few days time before it disappears completely from the big screen. At this stage an 8\10. See how I feel on my next viewing and I may up it one notch.
Agree with you and Vits completely about Gerwig's version, although I still cherish the the Armstrong version. I thought it was beautifully made, but it has a different, more elegiac quality. The vibrancy and expansion of the Gerwig version is rather exhilarating. And I also love that it was shot on film, an added virtue to the nth degree in my film (i.e. celluloid) loving mentality. And the locations - spread through the seasons - were gorgeous. A masterful work in so many ways, in my opinion, one in which Gerwig perfectly realized her defined vision, as illustrated in this interview from PBS evening news as part of their arts canvas (don't believe I've posted this before, and it's great):