Little Women (2019)
Jan. 20th, 2020 21:13![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
starladyI've seen it twice now--the second time with a friend who had never read the book or seen any other adaptation and only knew that "something sad happened because in Friends Joey puts the book in the freezer." Said friend vindicated my strong suspicion that Greta Gerwig's time jumping is totally comprehensible to anyone who pays attention closely enough; he said he was confused for 1-2 seconds tops at each transition, and as time goes on the costuming and Jo's hair makes it even clearer.
Anyway, I think this is by far the best adaptation of the story ever, and that it will remain so. I'm also kind of boggled that everyone thinks that Emma Watson is bad as Meg--she's overshadowed by Florence Pugh, but the movie pays attention to her after her marriage, and her putting in the work of adjusting to the circumstances she's chosen is very much a mirror to Jo's learning to rein in her temper and not blow up all her relationships. Amy does obviously do very well out of this adaptation, but I think this adaptation makes clear that she and Jo are actually far more similar than they are not--they're the ones who want to make art seriously, they're the ones who are closest to Laurie, they're the same in some fundamental wellsprings of their personality, just as Meg and Beth are very similar in some ways. I cried buckets both times, and I was struck both times by how American this adaptation is--the Whistler imagery, the Dvorak American quartets, the shots on location in Concord and such, the immigrants in New York City, the shores of a new world.
It's also even clearer to me that the ending where Jo marries Prof. Bhaer is totally fictional. There are strong cinematic cues that I noticed even on my first go-round, but this time around the lighting (which is the biggest tip-off) was even more obvious--blue for the cold present of adulthood, gold for the fond memories of childhood. When Bhaer comes to visit there are hints of gold in the blue, and when Jo shuts the door on him the light is precisely balanced. When her publisher prevails on her to change the ending, the shots are entirely gold, obviously so--and the double angle on their kiss, with Dashwood's voiceover, is another big tipoff. The fictional ending, where they're all happy together, childhood regained, is beautiful. But it's a fantasy; Jo clutching her book, lonely but a published novelist, is the real ending. And that's how it goes.
Anyway, I think this is by far the best adaptation of the story ever, and that it will remain so. I'm also kind of boggled that everyone thinks that Emma Watson is bad as Meg--she's overshadowed by Florence Pugh, but the movie pays attention to her after her marriage, and her putting in the work of adjusting to the circumstances she's chosen is very much a mirror to Jo's learning to rein in her temper and not blow up all her relationships. Amy does obviously do very well out of this adaptation, but I think this adaptation makes clear that she and Jo are actually far more similar than they are not--they're the ones who want to make art seriously, they're the ones who are closest to Laurie, they're the same in some fundamental wellsprings of their personality, just as Meg and Beth are very similar in some ways. I cried buckets both times, and I was struck both times by how American this adaptation is--the Whistler imagery, the Dvorak American quartets, the shots on location in Concord and such, the immigrants in New York City, the shores of a new world.
It's also even clearer to me that the ending where Jo marries Prof. Bhaer is totally fictional. There are strong cinematic cues that I noticed even on my first go-round, but this time around the lighting (which is the biggest tip-off) was even more obvious--blue for the cold present of adulthood, gold for the fond memories of childhood. When Bhaer comes to visit there are hints of gold in the blue, and when Jo shuts the door on him the light is precisely balanced. When her publisher prevails on her to change the ending, the shots are entirely gold, obviously so--and the double angle on their kiss, with Dashwood's voiceover, is another big tipoff. The fictional ending, where they're all happy together, childhood regained, is beautiful. But it's a fantasy; Jo clutching her book, lonely but a published novelist, is the real ending. And that's how it goes.
(no subject)
Date: 2020-01-21 05:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2020-01-21 20:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2020-01-21 06:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2020-01-21 22:17 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2020-01-21 18:10 (UTC)I thought Emma Watsn was goo, but the film did give comparatively short shrift to Meg in fleshing out Amy - I don't think you got as much sense of her character arc (especially if you hadn't read the book - there were enough bits that nodded to bigger elements in the book that I brought a lot to it, but I think those might have slightly less impact otherwise).
(no subject)
Date: 2020-01-21 18:12 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2020-01-21 22:20 (UTC)Yeah there are all these takes being like "you can choose which ending is real!" and I was like…only if you ignore the extremely blatant cues about what is real and what isn't! Which is why the Plumfield scene is so clearly fictional to me too, the light is so golden there's just no other way to read it, especially when it's juxtaposed with the publishing scenes. That's the gift she gives her family, that vision in print that will live forever.
(no subject)
Date: 2020-01-24 00:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2020-01-24 07:20 (UTC)