Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Little Women (2019)

13»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭S.M.B.


    This kind of highlights another fault I had with the film. It was all very glossy, all the time, so there wasn’t enough delineation between different points in the chronology and between reality and possible dreams.
    I thought there were big differences at times. The two beach scenes feel like polar opposites and after about 20 minutes I had little issue jumping forwards and backwards.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    S.M.B. wrote: »
    I thought there were big differences at times. The two beach scenes feel like polar opposites and after about 20 minutes I had little issue jumping forwards and backwards.

    I felt that anyone not familiar with the story would have struggled a bit with the jumbled timeline. It’s not something I usually have a problem with in films but I felt it wasn’t always clear where we were in the timeframe, not helped by the four girls looking pretty much the same in every scene with maybe minor differences. I also felt that it didn’t work sometimes because it robbed some events of their poignancy when you already knew what the outcome was. I understand that Gerwig was trying to put a fresh spin on the tale but it didn’t fully work, I don’t think.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,460 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    The colour scheme changes were very noticeable to me between the 'past' and 'present', which
    is why I thought it was very notable that the "perfect ending" was in the same vivid colours as all of the scenes that were ostensibly Jo's memories, while the book publishing scene was in the muted colours of the 'present'.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,026 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    I am not familiar with the story and as soon as I twigged the different colour palettes of the two timelines it all made perfect sense to me. Little confusing at first, but there is a clear visual signature differentiating the two segments which only became more pronounced as things progressed.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    MJohnston wrote: »
    The colour scheme changes were very noticeable to me between the 'past' and 'present', which
    is why I thought it was very notable that the "perfect ending" was in the same vivid colours as all of the scenes that were ostensibly Jo's memories, while the book publishing scene was in the muted colours of the 'present'.

    The colour scheme seemed to relate more to seasons than time periods to me. And it was all very luxe except maybe for
    some of Meg’s later scenes with her husband.
    The family was refined but was supposed to be really hard up and I don’t think that came across. The publisher’s office was a bit rundown but the March house wasn’t really. I wouldn’t rate the cinematography that highly. They had a golden opportunity to be more inventive with it, I thought.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,118 ✭✭✭PressRun


    Past memories were lit in a sort of warm golden glow. Present was much colder. That's how I saw it and the timeline made sense to me.

    As for the chemistry, I felt
    Saoirse had chemistry with Timothee Chalamet, but the infatuation was supposed to be unrequited, so it wasn't a romantic chemistry. To her mind, they were just friends. Even when she caves and says that she wants to marry him, she's still sort of lying to herself. She isn't really in love with him, she's just lonely. She still only really sees him as a friend and marrying him would be settling and letting her loneliness win, she basically tells her mother as much.



    As for the professor, he is not in the story enough and I'm not convinced they were even together at the end, I think that's just written into her book as the "happy ending" the publisher wanted. The scenes of her chasing him to the train station and the whole lot were tonally different to many of the other scenes, felt strangely unearned and nearly like a rom-com, and they happen side by side her negotiations with the publisher where he's telling her that her main character has to marry someone. I don't think they are actually a couple a the end, it's just Gerwig putting in the "happy ending" Alcott was forced to write as an added bit of commentary on those expectations that publishers and viewers/readers alike have of certain kinds of stories.


    Just my reading of it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭S.M.B.


    Agree with all those regarding the colour palette, as I said
    the contrast between the two beach scenes is very stark and how this visual contrast really does inform my reading of the final moments of the movie
    .


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,017 ✭✭✭homerun_homer


    I really enjoyed this film. I didn't know the story as I'd never watched any other adaptations. It's such an easy and enjoyable watch. The performances and cinematography are all brilliant. Greta Gerwig was robbed of nominations all through the awards season, it's nuts. Who did she piss off?

    I can imagine Saoirse and Greta working on many more projects together given their bond, how much they clearly love working together when you see them in interview, and how much they seem to inspire each other. I look forward to everything they will do after this double whammy of Ladybird and LW.
    I felt that anyone not familiar with the story would have struggled a bit with the jumbled timeline.

    I didn't struggle with it at all. But I did hear in advance that people got confused so was prepared in that sense to not be thrown.


  • Registered Users Posts: 864 ✭✭✭El Duda


    I can imagine Saoirse and Greta working on many more projects together given their bond, how much they clearly love working together when you see them in interview, and how much they seem to inspire each other.






    Funny you say that.


    After hearing Gerwig was working on a Little Women adaptation, Ronan called her up and said "I should play Jo". Apparently Gerwig didn't want to work with Ronan again so soon after Ladybird. She then realised that casting herself as Jo was a very Jo think to do, so she agreed; "Yes. You're Jo"


    (imdb trivia)


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,337 ✭✭✭Wombatman


    Clever adaptation. Beautiful set design and costumes. Touching moments well conveyed by a director at the top of her game, although some may find the timeline jumping a little confusing.

    Clearly a paean to all that is good about feminism and femininity, without it being overegged or in your face.

    While the sororal relationships are nicely developed I found the romantic relationships a little unconvincing.

    Ronan was top notch.

    8.5/10


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,740 ✭✭✭Foweva Awone


    I was really looking forward to this, but was very disappointed - I left halfway through, and it's very rare I'd do that.

    Saoirse Ronan wasn't bad as Jo, but Emma Watson was terribly miscast as Meg, I couldn't take her seriously at all. The actress playing Beth didn't seem right in the role either - very flat.

    The scenes when they were doing their plays in the house were just SO cringey.

    It's funny, from what I saw of it, it followed the plot of the book quite closely (apart from the dual timeline), but it didn't feel ANYTHING like the book - a completely different vibe, and I found it very hard to connect with it.

    I see most of the reviews here are quite positive though, so I guess I'm in the minority!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    I was really looking forward to this, but was very disappointed - I left halfway through, and it's very rare I'd do that.

    Saoirse Ronan wasn't bad as Jo, but Emma Watson was terribly miscast as Meg, I couldn't take her seriously at all. The actress playing Beth didn't seem right in the role either - very flat.

    The scenes when they were doing their plays in the house were just SO cringey.

    It's funny, from what I saw of it, it followed the plot of the book quite closely (apart from the dual timeline), but it didn't feel ANYTHING like the book - a completely different vibe, and I found it very hard to connect with it.

    I see most of the reviews here are quite positive though, so I guess I'm in the minority!

    Emma Watson fizzles. She’s just not exciting to watch. Proof that acting and charisma is about so much more than looks.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,755 ✭✭✭sporina


    toyed with the idea of seeing this in cinema but i am reluctant as I love the 1994 version with Winona Ryder so much..

    am i missing out?


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,460 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    sporina wrote: »
    toyed with the idea of seeing this in cinema but i am reluctant as I love the 1994 version with Winona Ryder so much..

    am i missing out?

    Yes, it puts a different spin on the classic story, so don’t worry about that too much.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,755 ✭✭✭sporina


    MJohnston wrote: »
    Yes, it puts a different spin on the classic story, so don’t worry about that too much.

    whats the different spin?
    and whats the story with the timeline?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭S.M.B.


    A lot of people who are big fans of the 94 version have high praise for this version. I think it's fantastic and would strongly urge you to watch without any further knowledge of the differences between the two versions.

    Without a doubt one of my favourite movies of the past few years.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,460 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    sporina wrote: »
    whats the different spin?
    and whats the story with the timeline?

    This is all spoiler so:
    So you know how the original story is essentially in two parts? There's a point in which there's a 3 or 4 year time jump, which happens in the book and I think happens in the 1994 movie also.

    Well, instead of telling that story in one straight line, with the time jump in the middle, Gerwig's movie moves back and forth between the two "timelines" frequently.

    Now I've only seen the story in the form Gerwig told it, but I can imagine the more linear version, and I think honestly it's a real piece of storytelling genius. The original story has a lot of mirroring events that take place years apart, and the dual timeline approach allows Gerwig to recontextualise all of these by running them together.

    So for example we see scenes of Jo remembering Beth's first illness contrasted against the 'present' where she's ill again - and of course this leads to a pretty gut-wrenching mirror where there's a happy ending for Beth in the past, but a tragic one in the present. This lets Gerwig use lots of visual reflections.

    There's other parallels too - we see Jo regret turning Laurie down at the same time as we see her actually doing that. And it allows Gerwig to move the return from war of the sisters' father until much closer to the end of the whole thing. Apparently for people who have read the book or watched earlier adaptations, the dual-timeline thing does a huge amount to rescue Amy's character and make her seem far less hateful for what she does to Jo when they're young.

    Now the way these two timelines are presented in the movie has confused some, but I'm not entirely sure why. There's a clear visual cue used to differentiate the past and present scenes - the past has a type of golden filter to the colours, everything is more colourful and warmer. The present is often in colder colours and more washed out. There are other signifiers too - hairstyles and the girls' general immaturity is more obvious in past scenes, and obviously Amy is off travelling in Europe for most of the present day stuff.

    The film doesn't frame these timeline changes though, there's no "flashback noise" or anything like that, and the changes do happen very frequently. For me it was the right kind of disorientation though, like Dunkirk's overlapping timelines, there's a certain thrill when events line up right.

    It also plays heavily into the new ending. This is a brand new scene, not in any book or previous film, which is right at the very end of the movie, and shows Jo at her publisher, trying to get Little Women published. The publisher doesn't like that her book ends with the Jo character being unmarried, he wants a happy ending. Jo argues with him about it, but in the end relents and changes it, and we see her watching the book being physically published. This is all heavily intercut with the book's ending, and the 1994 film's ending, where Jo chases after Bhaer and kisses him and then Marmee's 60th birthday party at Aunt March's (now Jo's) house.

    Now, the way it's presented is pretty superb, because if you want to, you can take it all at face value - that those happy endings actually did happen for Jo, and you're seeing what happened. That's a totally valid reading of it, and I think most people won't even think that the ending could be interpreted in other ways (which I think is a really skilful move on Gerwig's part).

    But the thing is, that "golden, colourful" filter I said was used for all the past scenes? The way the film presents those to us is that characters in the present are remembering things from the past. So, the colourful filter, to me, kind of represented the rose-tinted optimism of memory. In other words, there's a kind of imaginary quality to those past scenes.

    The really interesting part about the ending is that the scenes with Jo at the publisher are in the more muted, "realistic" colour scheme that I associated with the present reality of the rest of the movie. The happy ending scenes, both when Jo chases after Bhaer and the birthday party, are all presented in that super-saturated golden filter.

    I love that, because it leaves you with this lingering question about whether those happy ending scenes we were seeing were actually real. It allows the film to have that traditional ending, but wrap it in something much more contemporary and realistic. Saoirse also has a real air of regretful melancholy, of bittersweetness in that book publishing scene too, which really added to the feeling of unreality in the happy ending scenes because they're so over the top happy and celebratory.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    I saw this kind of by accident. It's not my type of movie at all, but I was honestly startled by how much I loved it.

    I know more about the author than the book itself, but I thought the timeline juggling and ending was incredibly clever.


Advertisement