|
|
Post by Vits on Feb 1, 2020 11:34:10 GMT
LITTLE WOMEN 1949 is about 4 sisters (whose last name is March) living in Massachusetts during the 19th century. While Jo (the 2nd-oldest) has been the protagonist in every incarnation of this story (beginning as a novel written by Louisa May Alcott). This adaptation gives the 4 sisters equal protagonism during the 1st half and then focuses mainly on Jo during the 2nd half, which makes things feel too uneven. Despite technically getting extra screentime, her romance with Professor Friedrich Bhaer feels rushed! How is that possible?! Also, this version of Jo is a lot less interesting than these versions of Amy and Beth. That being said, the pacing is good enough that the plot never drags, and June Allyson's performance is good. 6/10 The only thing that LITTLE WOMEN 1994 does better than its predecessor is that the romance between Jo and Bhaer feels believable. Unfortunately, the pacing is bad and there isn't enough focus on Beth's love for music. Therefore, when she's given a piano as a gift, it's not as touching as it should've been. Susan Sarandon feels wasted, but the other performances are good, and so is Geoffrey Simpson's cinematography. 5/10 LITTLE WOMEN 2019 moves the story events around and cleverly uses 2 timelines to contrast events and show the charaters' evolution over the years. It makes everything feel more compelling, to the point where the movie felt short. Not because I felt there was something missing in the plot, but because I would've been glad to keep following these versions of the characters around. Amy feels more developed than ever and there's less focus on tomboy stereotypes when it comes to Jo. She feels like she's not interested in marriage because she wants to be independent; not because she feels aversion towards lady-like behavior. The performances are great and every aspect of the production is on point. Just like she did in LADY BIRD, Greta Gerwig shows her ability to coordinate chaos, with people always moving around and interrupting each other in a way that feels authentic and never annoying. Whether they realize or not, the way they constantly express whatever it is they're feeling (no matter how trivial) makes them look like people who are happy to be alive. Naturally, that gave me a smile that stayed on my face throughout most of the running time. 10/10 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog. |
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Feb 1, 2020 12:26:21 GMT
Generally speaking, I thoroughly enjoy the 'Little Women' screen universe, but I've yet to see recent interpretations of the text. I'm encouraged to see your unusually high rating for Greta Gerwig's filmisation of the original novel. Thanks for the reviews.
|
|
|
|
Post by claudius on Feb 1, 2020 15:37:16 GMT
It's unfortunate you excluded the 1933 RKO/George Cukor version starring Katherine Hepburn, Douglass Montgomery, Joan Bennett (hiding her pregnancy), Edna Mae Oliver, and Spring Byrington. The 1949 MGM version is practically a remake; same costumer Walter Plunkett, Albert Deutsch's score uses Max Steiner's '33 composition, and the screenplay adapts Victor Heerman & Sarah Y. Mason's adapted screenplay (which won an oscar); it also has the same Mr. Davis in Olan Howland.
Comparing the '33 and '49 versions, they go by much the same episodic narrative with differences. 33 has the girls perform the play to neighborhood children, while 49 has them perform it themselves. 33 shows Amy overseas, greeted by Laurie, while 49 simply forgets about Amy until the ending. 33 has the stricken Beth shy away from Amy and then head to a closet, softly telling the girls what happened, and then asking if she has scarlet fever, describing the symptoms, while 49 has Beth reveal things in a serious dramatic manner. The 1949 version does have its additions as well. Whereas 33 has the girls directly spend their XMAS money for Marmee gifts, the 49 version has the girls go on a spending spree before changing their minds & exchanging their gifts for ones for Marmee. Both versions have the party, but 49 has the snobbish guests badmouth the Marches, followed by Jo's talk with Marmee about her plans for them.
Aside from these additions, I felt the 1933 version had better narrative. Whereas 1949 version introduces the girls all together, the 1933 is individual in intros: First its Marmee at a charity bazaar giving a coat to a father who is trying to see his ill son out of town (having lost several to war and prison). Then Governess Meg kissing her charges goodbye. Then Jo being companion to Aunt March. Then Amy and Mr. Davis (Joan Bennett's Amy cries her way out of it, while Liz uses her grace). Then Beth singing on her piano despite its faulty key. Then the girls get together. The 1949 disorganizes several scenes, giving Jo mood swings. While 33 has Jo already Aunt March's companion despite arguments about her father, 49' has Jo defying her Aunt over daddy, and then trying to kiss up so she can become her companion. Then there is the Bhaer situation. 33 first has the criticisms about her work and apologies, the romantic moment, then the trips to the play, etc., and then Jo gets a letter about home and departs. 49 does the trips first, then the criticism & apologies, leading to the romantic rapport...and then Jo interrupts by saying she has to go home.
Seeing all these as theatrical adaptations, I can see reason to exclude the 1978 TV-Miniseries with Susan Dey, Meredith Baxter, Eve Plumb, Greer Garson, William Shatner, and John de Lancie (So, Laurie Partridge, Elsye Keaton, Jan Brady, Mrs. Miniver, Captain Kirk, and Q), as well as the 1970 & 2018 BBC-TV Serials. I would have thought you would include the 2018 updated version with Sarah Davenport and Lea Thompson (Dad is in the Middle East and Amy burns Jo's laptop).
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Feb 1, 2020 15:53:47 GMT
claudius Please, edit your post to add spoiler tags. As for what you said, I didn't include other adaptations simply because I haven't seen them.
|
|
|
|
Post by claudius on Feb 1, 2020 16:12:48 GMT
Personally, I think this site already knows the story, but I've edited out the spoiling material.
I do wish you make an effort in watching & including famous & notable versions before making these threads (The 1933 LITTLE WOMEN and the Richard Lester MUSKETEERS films)
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 2, 2020 10:24:10 GMT
LITTLE WOMEN 1949 is about 4 sisters (whose last name is March) living in Massachusetts during the 19th century. While Jo (the 2nd-oldest) has been the protagonist in every incarnation of this story (beginning as a novel written by Louisa May Alcott). This adaptation gives the 4 sisters equal protagonism during the 1st half and then focuses mainly on Jo during the 2nd half, which makes things feel too uneven. Despite technically getting extra screentime, her romance with Professor Friedrich Bhaer feels rushed! How is that possible?! Also, this version of Jo is a lot less interesting than these versions of Amy and Beth. That being said, the pacing is good enough that the plot never drags, and June Allyson's performance is good. 6/10 The only thing that LITTLE WOMEN 1994 does better than its predecessor is that the romance between Jo and Bhaer feels believable. Unfortunately, the pacing is bad and there isn't enough focus on Beth's love for music. Therefore, when she's given a piano as a gift, it's not as touching as it should've been. Susan Sarandon feels wasted, but the other performances are good, and so is Geoffrey Simpson's cinematography. 5/10 LITTLE WOMEN 2019 moves the story events around and cleverly uses 2 timelines to contrast events and show the charaters' evolution over the years. It makes everything feel more compelling, to the point where the movie felt short. Not because I felt there was something missing in the plot, but because I would've been glad to keep following these versions of the characters around. Amy feels more developed than ever and there's less focus on tomboy stereotypes when it comes to Jo. She feels like she's not interested in marriage because she wants to be independent; not because she feels aversion towards lady-like behavior. The performances are great and every aspect of the production is on point. Just like she did in LADY BIRD, Greta Gerwig shows her ability to coordinate chaos, with people always moving around and interrupting each other in a way that feels authentic and never annoying. Whether they realize or not, the way they constantly express whatever it is they're feeling (no matter how trivial) makes them look like people who are happy to be alive. Naturally, that gave me a smile that stayed on my face throughout most of the running time. 10/10 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog.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.
|
|
|
|
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):
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Feb 2, 2020 15:17:23 GMT
The only one i have seen is the 1933 version. Which i thought was good.
I did see a YouTube video where they said the 2019 version was just a man hating movie, I assume that this is not actually the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Feb 2, 2020 15:32:26 GMT
I did see a YouTube video where they said the 2019 version was just a man hating movie, I assume that this is not actually the case. I didn't see it that way, but I'd recommend you to watch the movie and see it for yourself. Maybe you'll end up agreeing with that YouTuber.
|
|
|
|
Post by louise on Feb 3, 2020 7:55:22 GMT
I quite enjoyed the 1933 version, found the 1949 one somewhat dull by comparison. Haven’t seen the others. I expect the latest one probably has a lot of feminist stuff in it. When I read the book as a child, Part 2 was published separately as ‘Good Wives’ and I always found it dull compared to part one, which has all the fun bits.
|
|
|
|
Post by louise on Feb 3, 2020 7:56:32 GMT
claudius Please, edit your post to add spoiler tags. As for what you said, I didn't include other adaptations simply because I haven't seen them. Spoilers? For Little Women? Surely everyone knows the story?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Feb 3, 2020 9:47:36 GMT
Spoilers? For Little Women? Surely everyone knows the story? The time of publication/release isn't relevant. Spoilers are spoilers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 7, 2020 19:17:51 GMT
I quite enjoyed the 1933 version, found the 1949 one somewhat dull by comparison. Haven’t seen the others. I expect the latest one probably has a lot of feminist stuff in it. When I read the book as a child, Part 2 was published separately as ‘Good Wives’ and I always found it dull compared to part one, which has all the fun bits. If I was to give out a caveat of Gerwig’s version, is that it does appear that some of the tone is making a minor parallel to how things were for women in the era portrayed, as though women today still have to contend with similar issues. It is not sledgehammered though, but Gerwig being feminist, it was bound to come through. None of the male characters are condescended too. Jo March is a very strong headed woman and is costumed with a masculine touch. She does look great though. The film is handsomely mounted and terrifically acted and scripted. I have nothing but praise for Gerwig over her presentation.
|
|
