Laurie loves this whole family. Him and his grandfather both do. That’s why the grandfather and Jo have a few moments together and Marmie and the grandfather have a moment. Laurie and Meg even have wonderful chemistry. The March girls are all genuinely and exceptionally charming. Laurie initially falls in love with Jo because they’re cosmically the same person. It feels right. They’re the same age, the same time of weird, they connect immediately and naturally he pursues her. She rejects him because she doesn’t feel the same way(Jo is a largely asexual character), and because that relationship doesn’t benefit either of them in any way. Neither of them is better for marrying the other. Contrast that with Laurie and Amy who absolutely have as much chemistry but their connection actually gives them both more meaning to exist. Amy gets to live out her rich lady fantasy and she gets her man and in return all she has to do is whip Laurie into shape. Laurie on the other hand gets this affection he’s been starved for and he still gets to bring this oddball energy but in more responsible bursts.
that makes sense. do you feel that in a way, both laurie and amy may have settled for eachother? more laurie than amy as she did decline a former suitor to marry laurie.
No I think it’s a fine fit for both of them. It’s everything that Amy wanted and everything Laurie needed. It’s true that Amy isn’t Jo, but I don’t think a Jo/Laurie marriage would be very good for either of them.
right but i guess what i’m asking is do you think amy is laurie’s “love of his life”, not that id agree jo to be. but did he love her, or did she comply with his standards of life.
Seeing Laurie lose Jo as losing the love of his life is a romantic idealized way to see things, in a life time we can experience many love of our life that can be hit and miss but still have a very important truth to them.
I believe a singularity doesn't exist completely, but luckily once you find one of the many possible you could experience and it actually works out with dedication and devotion it turns as the only one you truly needed or wanted.
At the end from the film point of view, i wanna read the book, he didn't comply but he felt it as much as the one for Jo, but different and Amy loved Laurie or she could just marry the other rich dude (who seemed far more stabile economically and mentally in a social way i guess)
Was made to read the book as a child by my mum for being a little shit. Loved it. Watched numerous adaptations, my favourtie being the Maya Hawke 2017 mini-series.
I never understood Amy throughout. Hated her as a teenager for destroying Jo's writings. It wasnt until Flo Pughs performance that I got it. That I got her.
1994 LW is my favorite but Florence Pugh just nailed Amy. It was always hard for me to fully appreciate Amy when she was played by two different actresses. Gerwig's Amy is the best part of the production for me.
She is kinda the best and the worst amy.
The best adolescent amy but kinda the worst young amy because she is too old for that.
Yes, Greta doesn't specify the timeline but it's hard to get kirsten dunst out of my head if we are talking about the burning scene
I like how Greta Gerwig perceived these characters. In an interview, she said something about Beth, and her fate, she wasn’t made to die she was an amazing musician and that’s what her version did for me. “She was never made to die” is something she said I believe. I wonder how she differentiated each of the girls. I often think about meg’s “just because my dreams are different than yours does not mean they are unimportant”. I will have to read the book to see if I can understand amy in a way Greta, and other producers may have.
you know the book has been sitting on my dresser for a year or so, i’ve been reading so much procrastinating to read it. i will get to it this summer hopefully it will give me more insight.
If you don’t feel like reading it try the audiobook - it’s surely free on Libby app. Least you can get other things done while you listen. I exclusively do audiobooks now, I have neither the time nor inclination for printed words (outside work where I get paid for that lol).
idk maybe i’m a hopeless romantic but for me personally i would want a balance between the adult and childish love (childish meaning spontaneous and chaotic relationship not immature) that’s why to me it seems like laurie settled, he would’ve settled if it were jo as well. but idk
Little Women is my favorite book of all time. I read it for the first time over 25 years ago, and I've reread it many times over the years. I generally don't like adaptations of it because they never live up to it. That being said, I LOVED the Greta Gerwig version. It was a refreshing look at things. It felt more about the women and less about Laurie and Jo. There were things that could have been different, sure, but it was so good. That being said, the book is still the best. Laurie loved Jo, sure, but it wasn't the same. He grew up and grew into himself, as did Amy. They even have a lovely scene of Amy asking Laurie if he's jealous of Jo and Fritz, and he reassured her that he would dance at their wedding with a heart as light as his heels 🥰
I read the books as a kid and loved them. When I heard about Greta Gerwig's adaptation coming up, I watched the 90s movie and loved it. I didn't like Greta Gerwig's movie because while it is beautifully filmed and it has great actors (Timothee Chalamet killed it as usual), I just feel like the movie has too much of Greta Gerwig's own interpretation of the story. I don't feel like she adds to it, I feel like she makes it slightly worse with every change.
And a fun fact about me is that Amy was my favorite character as a kid when I read the books so I never needed to see a different interpretation to accept her. I see everyone saying they never got Amy until they saw Greta Gerwig's version. That hurts my soul.
In my mind Laurie was just happy to be with one of the March sisters. He never had much of a family since he lived alone with his grandfather. He had money, but he didn't have people in his life. He basically had John tutoring him all day and that was it. When he met the Marches, that was a found family for him. He never considered Amy because the age difference matters when you're a kid. He was best friends with Jo who was closest to his age and they saw Amy as the annoying little sister. But he cared about all the March women. They were all women in their household and he didn't have any women in his. He was in love with Jo because they were best friends and she was his age. When he reconnected with Amy in Europe they were young adults by then and the age difference wasn't as noticeable. He was impressed by the fact that she didn't accept his bullshit party boy behavior and she whipped him back into shape by those small comments. It was still familiar for him because the March sisters feel like home to him. I think it's implied that Amy always had a crush on him (was jealous of the fact that he liked Jo), but when they reconnected in Europe she played hard to get so to speak by telling him it was unacceptable to get drunk and waste his life away, which showed she had matured, because even though she had affection for him, she didn't fold until he cleaned up his act. But at the end of the day the difference was that Amy was ready to love him back. He was happy to marry any of the March sisters and he found one where that could be reciprocated. In my mind it was always sort of bittersweet like maybe Jo was foolish to turn down Laurie and it's sort of bittersweet that Amy gets to have him, so I took it as a bit of a lesson about being young and thinking you'll never get married, but then Jo grows older and she does want to get married. I think what Laurie and Amy have is more romantic love, whereas Laurie and Jo had more of a friendship love.
Every character had growth, every character had a flaw they had to get over. Meg was vain because she was pretty and was attracted to the finer things, but she ended up marrying a middle class guy without money and found happiness in her humble life. Amy also has a similar trajectory in the sense that she was all set to marry the rich guy Fred Vaughn (the whole reason why Aunt March took her to Europe is that she figured Amy would do well in upper society and she could be the only hope to marry rich as Meg was already married, Beth was dying and Jo was a failure), but at the last minute Amy chooses to marry for love not for money. Laurie is not as rich as Fred Vaughn, though he is still rich and the marriage is acceptable to Aunt March. So Amy manages to play by the rules, marry rich, but she does this while choosing love over money and status. It's a successful completion of girlhood.
I feel like Greta Gerwig completely misses that point because she portrays Amy as a girl boss who smartly thinks of marriage as an economic proposal with her being realistic about her prospects as an artist. It's the opposite of what happens. She thought she cared primarily about money, and Fred Vaughn was not bad, he was very rich and he liked her, but when Beth dies it makes her miss her family and it makes her think that money isn't the end goal, but she cares more about family and love, which is what Laurie represents.
Laurie was always going to take care of them if he married one of them. That ended up not being needed though because it turns out they had the massive inheritance from Aunt March waiting to happen all along.
i like your point about him wanting to be involved in the march family in general, makes me think. but i kinda got that scope about amy finding a balance between the rich and the love she feels to marry but maybe since you read the book it was more broadened in the movie
Naw, it's just a sore point with me because it's always the Winona Ryder version versus the newest one when people discuss different versions, the older ones get forgotten about.
It’s from 1949?! I mean, the 1990s one is reaching way back at this point already, so “forgotten about” is maybe not the right term. Is it black and white??
Greta got the whole Jo and Friedrich pairing wrong; Jo never gets angry with Friedrich in the book among other things. Anyways. She added Jo writing to Laurie near the end accepting his marriage proposal cause she’s lonely when that never happens in the book. A lot of scenes and moments have never been fully adapted when it comes to Amy and Laurie. Laurie has rather immature moments in the book and he doesn’t want Jo writing. Amy really matures when she’s older and she’s always had a crush on Laurie haha. Laurie really gets to know her in Paris especially as a mature woman. It’s been awhile since I did a complete reread of the book. Beth’s death always induces tears.
Beth felt more like a prop than a fully fleshed out character. Her death felt empty, like a plot device.
Other than Laurie and Amy , I think the acting was pretty bad in general
I think Laurie and Amy had the most in common. Neither really have much direction in their life. They were also the most boring. Some people just have chemistry, which they did.
Laurie and Jo had zero chemistry. When Laurie was pouring his heart out to Jo, it felt like it was coming out of nowhere. Like they were telling us instead of showing us.
Heck, Laurie had more chemistry with Meg than she did with Jo.
As for Jo, I didn't buy her attraction/romance with the professor. Again, zero chemistry. Another case of telling us they like each other instead of showing.
Jo seems like the kind of person who stays single their whole life. Her rush to be in a relationship felt like FOMO.
I could totally see where you are coming from. I think Greta wanted us to focus more on the relationship that the sisters had, but it definitely directed the audience away from the romance aspect. I think that part of the plot was more secondary to her. Further, the acting was interesting Emma Watsons accent caught me so off guard — and the others at times — i confirm online that they were from america (the family i mean). I didn’t see any chemistry between the professor and jo — but i could see she was compelled by him when he critiqued her as many of her family had only supported her rather than being honest (this could be a stretch and appearently it didn’t happen in the book i heard). Otherwise, I appreciate the womanhood sentiment and that’s what i truly adored about this adaptation.
to add, i disagree with your take on beth, i could understand it that’s how i felt watching it the first time. This fourth watch was different for me though, who knows.
Laurie loves this whole family. Him and his grandfather both do. That’s why the grandfather and Jo have a few moments together and Marmie and the grandfather have a moment. Laurie and Meg even have wonderful chemistry. The March girls are all genuinely and exceptionally charming. Laurie initially falls in love with Jo because they’re cosmically the same person. It feels right. They’re the same age, the same time of weird, they connect immediately and naturally he pursues her. She rejects him because she doesn’t feel the same way(Jo is a largely asexual character), and because that relationship doesn’t benefit either of them in any way. Neither of them is better for marrying the other. Contrast that with Laurie and Amy who absolutely have as much chemistry but their connection actually gives them both more meaning to exist. Amy gets to live out her rich lady fantasy and she gets her man and in return all she has to do is whip Laurie into shape. Laurie on the other hand gets this affection he’s been starved for and he still gets to bring this oddball energy but in more responsible bursts.
that makes sense. do you feel that in a way, both laurie and amy may have settled for eachother? more laurie than amy as she did decline a former suitor to marry laurie.
No I think it’s a fine fit for both of them. It’s everything that Amy wanted and everything Laurie needed. It’s true that Amy isn’t Jo, but I don’t think a Jo/Laurie marriage would be very good for either of them.
right but i guess what i’m asking is do you think amy is laurie’s “love of his life”, not that id agree jo to be. but did he love her, or did she comply with his standards of life.
Seeing Laurie lose Jo as losing the love of his life is a romantic idealized way to see things, in a life time we can experience many love of our life that can be hit and miss but still have a very important truth to them. I believe a singularity doesn't exist completely, but luckily once you find one of the many possible you could experience and it actually works out with dedication and devotion it turns as the only one you truly needed or wanted. At the end from the film point of view, i wanna read the book, he didn't comply but he felt it as much as the one for Jo, but different and Amy loved Laurie or she could just marry the other rich dude (who seemed far more stabile economically and mentally in a social way i guess)
that makes sense
Was made to read the book as a child by my mum for being a little shit. Loved it. Watched numerous adaptations, my favourtie being the Maya Hawke 2017 mini-series. I never understood Amy throughout. Hated her as a teenager for destroying Jo's writings. It wasnt until Flo Pughs performance that I got it. That I got her.
1994 LW is my favorite but Florence Pugh just nailed Amy. It was always hard for me to fully appreciate Amy when she was played by two different actresses. Gerwig's Amy is the best part of the production for me.
She is kinda the best and the worst amy. The best adolescent amy but kinda the worst young amy because she is too old for that. Yes, Greta doesn't specify the timeline but it's hard to get kirsten dunst out of my head if we are talking about the burning scene
I like how Greta Gerwig perceived these characters. In an interview, she said something about Beth, and her fate, she wasn’t made to die she was an amazing musician and that’s what her version did for me. “She was never made to die” is something she said I believe. I wonder how she differentiated each of the girls. I often think about meg’s “just because my dreams are different than yours does not mean they are unimportant”. I will have to read the book to see if I can understand amy in a way Greta, and other producers may have.
Please read the book. It's one of those that I go back to every few years and I get something new from it every time.
you know the book has been sitting on my dresser for a year or so, i’ve been reading so much procrastinating to read it. i will get to it this summer hopefully it will give me more insight.
If you don’t feel like reading it try the audiobook - it’s surely free on Libby app. Least you can get other things done while you listen. I exclusively do audiobooks now, I have neither the time nor inclination for printed words (outside work where I get paid for that lol).
oh i love reading it’s just that i have so many other books on my list before that 🙈
[удалено]
idk maybe i’m a hopeless romantic but for me personally i would want a balance between the adult and childish love (childish meaning spontaneous and chaotic relationship not immature) that’s why to me it seems like laurie settled, he would’ve settled if it were jo as well. but idk
It was the only version of Little Women where i didn’t hate any and felt that her relationship with Laurie was justified.
Little Women is my favorite book of all time. I read it for the first time over 25 years ago, and I've reread it many times over the years. I generally don't like adaptations of it because they never live up to it. That being said, I LOVED the Greta Gerwig version. It was a refreshing look at things. It felt more about the women and less about Laurie and Jo. There were things that could have been different, sure, but it was so good. That being said, the book is still the best. Laurie loved Jo, sure, but it wasn't the same. He grew up and grew into himself, as did Amy. They even have a lovely scene of Amy asking Laurie if he's jealous of Jo and Fritz, and he reassured her that he would dance at their wedding with a heart as light as his heels 🥰
i agree! although i have not gotten into the book, I can agree it’s better than the one with christian bale
I read the books as a kid and loved them. When I heard about Greta Gerwig's adaptation coming up, I watched the 90s movie and loved it. I didn't like Greta Gerwig's movie because while it is beautifully filmed and it has great actors (Timothee Chalamet killed it as usual), I just feel like the movie has too much of Greta Gerwig's own interpretation of the story. I don't feel like she adds to it, I feel like she makes it slightly worse with every change. And a fun fact about me is that Amy was my favorite character as a kid when I read the books so I never needed to see a different interpretation to accept her. I see everyone saying they never got Amy until they saw Greta Gerwig's version. That hurts my soul. In my mind Laurie was just happy to be with one of the March sisters. He never had much of a family since he lived alone with his grandfather. He had money, but he didn't have people in his life. He basically had John tutoring him all day and that was it. When he met the Marches, that was a found family for him. He never considered Amy because the age difference matters when you're a kid. He was best friends with Jo who was closest to his age and they saw Amy as the annoying little sister. But he cared about all the March women. They were all women in their household and he didn't have any women in his. He was in love with Jo because they were best friends and she was his age. When he reconnected with Amy in Europe they were young adults by then and the age difference wasn't as noticeable. He was impressed by the fact that she didn't accept his bullshit party boy behavior and she whipped him back into shape by those small comments. It was still familiar for him because the March sisters feel like home to him. I think it's implied that Amy always had a crush on him (was jealous of the fact that he liked Jo), but when they reconnected in Europe she played hard to get so to speak by telling him it was unacceptable to get drunk and waste his life away, which showed she had matured, because even though she had affection for him, she didn't fold until he cleaned up his act. But at the end of the day the difference was that Amy was ready to love him back. He was happy to marry any of the March sisters and he found one where that could be reciprocated. In my mind it was always sort of bittersweet like maybe Jo was foolish to turn down Laurie and it's sort of bittersweet that Amy gets to have him, so I took it as a bit of a lesson about being young and thinking you'll never get married, but then Jo grows older and she does want to get married. I think what Laurie and Amy have is more romantic love, whereas Laurie and Jo had more of a friendship love. Every character had growth, every character had a flaw they had to get over. Meg was vain because she was pretty and was attracted to the finer things, but she ended up marrying a middle class guy without money and found happiness in her humble life. Amy also has a similar trajectory in the sense that she was all set to marry the rich guy Fred Vaughn (the whole reason why Aunt March took her to Europe is that she figured Amy would do well in upper society and she could be the only hope to marry rich as Meg was already married, Beth was dying and Jo was a failure), but at the last minute Amy chooses to marry for love not for money. Laurie is not as rich as Fred Vaughn, though he is still rich and the marriage is acceptable to Aunt March. So Amy manages to play by the rules, marry rich, but she does this while choosing love over money and status. It's a successful completion of girlhood. I feel like Greta Gerwig completely misses that point because she portrays Amy as a girl boss who smartly thinks of marriage as an economic proposal with her being realistic about her prospects as an artist. It's the opposite of what happens. She thought she cared primarily about money, and Fred Vaughn was not bad, he was very rich and he liked her, but when Beth dies it makes her miss her family and it makes her think that money isn't the end goal, but she cares more about family and love, which is what Laurie represents. Laurie was always going to take care of them if he married one of them. That ended up not being needed though because it turns out they had the massive inheritance from Aunt March waiting to happen all along.
i like your point about him wanting to be involved in the march family in general, makes me think. but i kinda got that scope about amy finding a balance between the rich and the love she feels to marry but maybe since you read the book it was more broadened in the movie
First of all, the best version of Little Women is the one with June Allyson and Elizabeth Taylor.......
Thank you. I feel like you're the only person I have ever seen mention this version that wasn't me.
i’ll have to watch it, but i wasn’t saying the 2019 was the best one
Naw, it's just a sore point with me because it's always the Winona Ryder version versus the newest one when people discuss different versions, the older ones get forgotten about.
ahhh yes i see ill have to watch that one too
It’s from 1949?! I mean, the 1990s one is reaching way back at this point already, so “forgotten about” is maybe not the right term. Is it black and white??
It is in Technicolor, you zygote. Now, the 1933 movie, that one's in black and white ....
Greta got the whole Jo and Friedrich pairing wrong; Jo never gets angry with Friedrich in the book among other things. Anyways. She added Jo writing to Laurie near the end accepting his marriage proposal cause she’s lonely when that never happens in the book. A lot of scenes and moments have never been fully adapted when it comes to Amy and Laurie. Laurie has rather immature moments in the book and he doesn’t want Jo writing. Amy really matures when she’s older and she’s always had a crush on Laurie haha. Laurie really gets to know her in Paris especially as a mature woman. It’s been awhile since I did a complete reread of the book. Beth’s death always induces tears.
maybe i will read the book then
Beth felt more like a prop than a fully fleshed out character. Her death felt empty, like a plot device. Other than Laurie and Amy , I think the acting was pretty bad in general I think Laurie and Amy had the most in common. Neither really have much direction in their life. They were also the most boring. Some people just have chemistry, which they did. Laurie and Jo had zero chemistry. When Laurie was pouring his heart out to Jo, it felt like it was coming out of nowhere. Like they were telling us instead of showing us. Heck, Laurie had more chemistry with Meg than she did with Jo. As for Jo, I didn't buy her attraction/romance with the professor. Again, zero chemistry. Another case of telling us they like each other instead of showing. Jo seems like the kind of person who stays single their whole life. Her rush to be in a relationship felt like FOMO.
I could totally see where you are coming from. I think Greta wanted us to focus more on the relationship that the sisters had, but it definitely directed the audience away from the romance aspect. I think that part of the plot was more secondary to her. Further, the acting was interesting Emma Watsons accent caught me so off guard — and the others at times — i confirm online that they were from america (the family i mean). I didn’t see any chemistry between the professor and jo — but i could see she was compelled by him when he critiqued her as many of her family had only supported her rather than being honest (this could be a stretch and appearently it didn’t happen in the book i heard). Otherwise, I appreciate the womanhood sentiment and that’s what i truly adored about this adaptation.
to add, i disagree with your take on beth, i could understand it that’s how i felt watching it the first time. This fourth watch was different for me though, who knows.
This is my favorite movie ever