Showing posts with label Louisa May Alcott. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Louisa May Alcott. Show all posts

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Little Women (1994)

I can't quite remember the first time I saw this movie... but it was a few years ago. I enjoyed it a lot. I hadn't read the book and knew that the book must be better because it always is, but didn't end up reading it until earlier this year. Now that I have, I can review the movie with a clear conscience. Heehee.

The thing is, I'm not really used to doing movie reviews... usually I have a brief overview with all the adaptations of a particular book, but I didn't feel like doing that this time. Anyways, I definitely think this is the best version, although I've only seen two others so if you mention another one you liked, I might even be convinced to watch it. ;-)

Hmm, where to start? Well, I guess I'll just start with the main characters. That's easy enough. Hopefully.

Meg. A funny thing about this movie is that for me, it's actually pretty hard to compare it to the book, and it's the same way with the characters. I mean, with a lot of adaptations of classic literature you can say "This actress completely slaughtered the character," or "This actress got her to a T!" but with this movie, none of them really like the character in the book, but they're not really unlike them either. Anyway, I actually liked Meg pretty well. The movie being a normal movie-length and not a mini-series it wasn't long enough to get to know the characters very well, but in a general sense I think it was pretty good. She seems, perhaps, even a little more... gentle, I guess, in the movie.

Jo. La, what to say about Jo? She's one of those endearing characters you just have to love. As far as accuracy to the book, it's the same as what I was saying about Meg. I found the actress' portrayal very delightful and not contradictory to the book, yet not the same. But looking just at the movie, which is what I should be focusing on, I liked her a lot. She was funny and quite interesting--you know, there's a lot to her. And I always find myself drawn to characters who are bookworms and writers. It's just the way things are. And she's definitely my favorite sister in the movie. :)

Beth. Now, I'm a little more opinionated about the book-to-movie aspect here. I did think Claire Danes was a little contrary to the book's Beth... but not in a way easy to put my finger on. I guess she just irritated me a little. And in looks I just don't think she suited her too well, but it's not like I hated the portrayal. It was just okay. By the way, in the book Jo and Beth were closest to each other, and Meg and Amy were more of a pair, too. This wasn't very obvious in the movie: especially the latter.

Amy. (Isn't it funny how Amy is the only March sister with a name that can't be/isn't shortened?) For her, there are two actresses who play the character--one younger, one older. (And I'm glad they did this, because it's ridiculous when they have a twenty-something-year-old trying to play a character who's twelve.) The younger one seems to be the main one, though; when it gets to the part after Meg's wedding it seems like the whole movie turns its focus almost solely on Jo (which isn't the way it is in the book), though the focus is on her most of the time anyways. I don't like her when she's older, either. Amy, I mean. When she's younger, she annoys me some of the time (and I can never forgive her for burning Jo's book, no matter what Marmee may choose to say upon the subject) but I really do like her. She's funny and cute. The other one... there isn't much of her and when she is there she just seems rather like a cold, boring person. (Though after she marries...er, who she marries; should I be trying to write this without spoilers, I wonder?--she at least seems nice.) It was much better in the book. Actually, I was pleased to find that I liked Amy altogether better in the book. But especially when she's older.

Mrs. March (Marmee). I actually liked her acting rather well. The only complaints I have would be more the fault of the scriptwriter, and I rambled about my irritation in this post quite enough that at this point it will do as well to be silent. (Er, that last part was a Mr. Collins quote... sorry.) Anyway, again, everything is more detailed and you know a lot more about characters (and in this case, the relationship with their daughters) from reading the book, but let's just assume that from this point on, shall we?

Laurie. Hmm... he was all right. He wasn't really the Laurie of the book though, and his teeth irritated me. :P He was funny, though, and of course I like that. It was fun watching him and Jo. "If only I were the swooning type!" "If only I were the catching type!" But later on, after The Refusal... arrghh. I disliked him. More, I daresay, than the viewer is supposed to. Heh. But he wasn't all bad.

Professor Bhaer. I liked him, I really did. And then I read the book. It's the same old story. I like them both in different ways but the book's is better. I will confess, though, that there was one thing I liked better about him in the movie: the absence of a beard. Heehee. And I'll pull out the excuse not to say much about him because it might give away some of the stories for those who don't know it already. If indeed there are such people reading this. ;-)

Okay. I'll move on from characters now.

Grrrr. 

The costumes were lovely. I enjoyed them very much--and I really liked the 'real' feel they had to them, well suited to the story. And the hairstyles and all that. A lot of Victorian period dramas I see are, of course, set in England and the people are either rich and have a lot of fancy, fluffy clothes, or they're very poor and haven't anything fit to be seen. Haha. But the Marches, in comparison with those sort of things, are more in-between. They dresses were often practical yet detailed and interesting and just nice. And then of course some of the ball gowns and Older Amy's clothes are more rich-y.


The soundtrack was also very nice. As an actual soundtrack, I don't usually listen to it by itself all the way through very much... sometimes just a few songs, mainly the dance songs. But in the actual movie I think it goes quite well, and the main theme is nice. And sort of Christmassy. I guess that's because it plays at the beginning, and the movie starts on Christmas Eve.

Ooh, that's another nice thing about this movie... it has a lot of Christmas in it! and I do love Christmas. But enough of it isn't Christmas so that you can watch it other times too without feeling guilty. Haha.

Isn't the kitten cuuuuute?
As far as accuracy to the book goes... well, it's probably more like a general overview of the story. Little Women isn't really the shortest children's classic in the world. And they did change some things, but for the most part they didn't stray from the story terribly.

As a movie, I'd probably give it an A or A-. There's something delightful about it, but it's not one of the period dramas I go crazy over. (Some of you may doubt I ever do that. It's just in my own way, you know. :P)

I hardly think a review is complete without a trailer, so here's one, but it hath Spoilers. If you don't already know the story, I wouldn't recommend watching it. Also, some trailers I just find really fun to watch and they capture the spirit of the movie they're representing... this isn't one of them. (And why didn't they use music from the movie? Instead, music from this movie is used on other trailers... S&S95, for example.) But it does include one or two of my favorite quotes. :)

That's about it! Sorry this was so long in coming, everyone. I am a very sad procrastinator at times.

Sunday, August 12, 2012

Little Women: The Book

I’ve procrastinated. I’ve put it off. I’ve looked at my poor, neglected blog and sighed. And then today, the internet stopped working. Again. (I am getting tired of this.) And this time it’s very inopportune—on a Sunday afternoon, which is a quiet time in my house and I like to waste time on the internet, writing emails, reading blog posts, and whatever else happens to strike my fancy. And I used to write blog posts on Sunday afternoons, back in the days when I had something planned for each week. So I decided to take this as a hint and sit down and finally write this thing that I was supposed to have done over two months ago when I finally finished reading Little Women.

But you see, I do not want to write a review. I do not like writing reviews, and am not good at it. (I’m not actually being serious there—it was just one of those inadvertent Jane Austen paraphrases. Mr. Knightley on Dancing this time. :P) I do not always dislike writing reviews, but I didn’t want to for this one. Besides, Little Women is a book there would be ten thousand reviews of scattered everywhere. It’s not as if you don’t know the story. (And if you don’t and you want to, just go look it up on Wikipedia or something.) So instead, I’m just going to talk about it, even though I don’t really know what to say, as I if I were emailing a friend. Goodness knows THAT’S easy enough. (I seem to remember getting out of writing a review this way before… yes indeed, I am repeating myself. Oh, well. Please do forgive my redundancy.) So this is NOT  review… actually, if you don’t know the story, I wouldn’t recommend you read it because I might give things away.

So. Little Women is one of those classic books I’ve always intended to read, and have always be embarrassed to announce that I hadn’t yet done so when people would inquire. I mean, I heard about LW long before my interest in Jane Austen. Yet still I didn’t read it. I started it a few times. But there was always some reason not to read it… like the copy we have, for starters. A nice, old-fashioned looking, hardbound copy, which I started reading, and then checked the front to make sure it wasn’t abridged or anything… and it was. Bother. “Abridged for modern reading,” said it. (I think some stuff was just cut out, because the wording seemed authentic. And the funny thing is, the other Louisa May Alcott books in the set with it do not say they are abridged… oh well, don’t ask me.) And then I tried to get one from the library, but I did not like the copy. It had hideous illustrations and was large and thick and hard-cover, and I didn’t care for the font. So it went back the library and I continued reading whatever else I was reading at the time.

Along the way somewhere I was finally introduced to the story by watching a film of LW. I liked the story well enough (as I always knew I would), but I didn’t care for the movie itself. It was some 1970s version…one my mom got from the library. The actors were all too old and it was just generally annoying. Then I saw the version with Katharine Hepburn… yick. Finally my sister introduced me to the 1994 version, which is of course the best, but don’t worry, I always knew the book would be better…when is it not? Well, when it’s Mary Poppins. Ahem. Anyways.

I made a list at the beginning of this year, with “Must Reads,” “Should Reads,” and then a longer list of random ideas of things to read, and my goal was 30 books total. (That may sound pathetic, but I am a slow reader.) LW was actually on the “Should Read” list, whereas, say, North and South, which I still haven’t read but intend to later this year, was on the “Must Read.” But then my priorities were set straight by Amy. (Um, Amy Dashwood, not Amy March. Heehee.) I must confess that the amount she reads rather puts me to shame, and it was horrid never to have read LW when she had such a high opinion of it and practically knew it by heart and it was something I SHOULD have read ages ago. So I search Amazon for a copy I would like, looked up the ISBN on my library website, and got it. And started it. And finished it in June.

You may wonder why I am rambling on in this matter, and I shall tell you. It is because I still don’t really know what to write about the actual book itself. Don’t get me wrong, I loved it, and I’ll definitely read it again. It’s quite different from other things in that all this time passes in it and it doesn’t really have a particular plot. (I don’t think this is a bad thing, it just makes it hard to blog about.) And although Jo March is the main main character, all of the March girls have their own chapters in the book and all that, so it’s almost like there are four heroines. I would talk about the March girls, but I’m thinking about doing an entire post about them—or rather, how I connected with each of them in different ways. So I’ll save it.

Okay, I’ll just talk about the guys instead. My favorite was Mr. Bhaer, hands-down. He was wonderful. (He would be more wonderful if he didn’t have a beard, but we’ll skip this small detail.) And the proposal scene was so CUTE. The movie was cute too, but the book was more… more real. It was just so sweet! Awww, etc.  And I love how he called Jo “heart’s dearest.” *sentimental sniff*

Anyways. I liked Laurie some of the time. I liked him more of the time than I did in the movie, that’s for sure. And his, er, romance (second love interest, shall we say?) wasn’t quite as annoying as in the movie either (I can’t help comparing things this way, as I saw the movie first) but it still did annoy me a great deal. The IDEA. *grunts* At least their family knew they were engaged, though, instead of just randomly coming home and saying “Guess what? I just married your little sister! Isn’t that nice?” *shudders*

Speaking of things that irritated me in the movie that didn’t as much in the book, the Amy-burns-Jo’s-book thing was much better. I cannot STAND that part in the movie. So, Amy does this dastardly thing, and instead of dealing with the girl, Mrs. March goes to Jo and starts lecturing her about how she needs to forgive her, let not the sun go down upon thy wrath, blah blah blah. Priorities, lady. Your youngest daughter needs to be punished. The girl hasn’t even apologized! And that little, weak-voiced “Sorry, Jo” as she goes out of the room doesn’t count. So, it was still a little bit annoying in the book, but not nearly as much; it was quite different. It was less rushed, and all made more sense. Amy seemed a lot sorrier in the book too, which was nice. And the ice-skating incident made more sense, too, how Jo would be blaming herself, since she knew Amy hadn’t heard the warning about the ice and didn’t tell her. Also, Meg suggesting that Amy follow them. Yep, yep. It was all much, much better.

Ha, sorry, that section was a pet peeve of mine in the movie. Moving on.

I also liked Amy when she was older much, much better than in the movie. She was actually likable. But then, everything is better in the book. (Except there are some funny quotes in the movie that aren’t in the book. “Are you shocked?” “Very.”)

In general, the book was just a lot of fun. One of those delightful, light-hearted, well-written, interesting, imaginative… no wonder it’s a classic. And yay for it being an American classic! Sadly, there seem to be few American Classics I actually like. But it’s not as if I’ve read that many. Funny… all the likable American Literature I can think of are Children’s Classics.

This spontaneous rambling about a book is actually rather fun. But I very much hope it isn’t annoying anybody.

Now, a while back I had a poll on the sidebar about whether I should have a ‘series’ for Little Women as I did for all the Jane Austen novels and Jane Eyre. At this time I am planning on doing a short series-ish thing… that is, all my next posts will probably be Little Women-themed. I’m not going to be doing one of those overview-of-every-adaptation posts, simply because I don’t want to sit through them all; but I’m planning to review the 1994 version, have a couple other posts that are more Theme-y than this sloppy one, and then maybe a game or two. What do you think?

And now questions for you. Have you read Little Women? How many times have you read it? How old were you the first time? (Don’t worry about mortifying me. You might, but I do want to know.) I hope to read another Louisa May Alcott before too long—would you recommend I start with the sequel, Little Men, or should I pick up An Old-Fashioned Girl, which title has enticed me for years? I’d love to hear your thoughts on everything in a comment. :)

P.S. I sort of forgot to mention John Brooke along with the rest, didn’t I? Heh. Oh well. Sorry, John.

Sunday, September 11, 2011

Authors card game

This is my last odds-and-ends post for the day.
If all goes according to plan, I shall be starting posts on Northanger Abbey next week.


Well, there’s this little game that I’ve been playing quite a bit lately, mostly with my sister (and usually my niece joins in). I don’t remember how it came up, but some of my family started talking about this game – I guess I was too young to play when it was popular with them before – and when my dad mentioned Jane Austen was in it, of course I had to seek it out. There it was, not even buried or anything, in the game closet.

   The box is so worn-out you can see it has been used a lot!
   The game is actually rather easy – sort of like Go Fish, except more interesting, of course. And I know it nearly by heart now – give me a book in the game, and I could tell you who wrote it; name one of the authors, and I could tell you a few books by him.

   My sister and I are always trying to get certain authors – the “desirables” – Jane Austen, of course, is top priority. If you get her set, you win the game. (Well, not really, but that is a little joke between us.)

   I’m not sure why they think she looked like that – in particular the hair color – but oh well. At least she’s in there! In the newer games she’s left out – can you believe it?!
   If I would have been choosing the books, I’d replace Mansfield Park with Sense and Sensibility – I think it’s just as well-known, if not more so.
   For quite a while when I first started playing this, I hardly EVER got her – it was very odd. But I’m catching up. =)

Here are some more desirables –
And especially Louisa May Alcott, because she’s one of the only two women authors In the game.

Which is why I replaced one with…
   L. M. Montgomery. The name of the author originally there as well as all his books but one were hard to pronounce (because they were French), and we never hear of that author anyways. So I covered up “weird black-haired dude” or “Bald Zach” as we jokingly called him (the latter because of his last name – Balzac) with a ‘girl author.’ I made the card things myself on the computer, and used rubber cement to glue it on. It sticks well, but also peels off nicely without damaging the original cards.

   I might replace them with the Bronte Sisters or Elizabeth Gaskell later.

After playing the game so many times, we started to nic-name some things; change the titles slightly, etc. just for fun. Here are the ones that have to do with Jane Austen:

For this one, we copy Harriet from the 2009 Emma and say “ ‘Shipcourt’ of Miles Standish”. Tehe.
Instead of ‘Sir Walter Scott’ we often say ‘Sir Walter Elliot’; the father's name in Persuasion.
Sir Walter Scott lived while Jane Austen did – they were actually around the same age. He admired her works – I think she must have admired his as well, since she quoted him quite a bit.


Here’s a complete list of the authors in this edition of the game:
William Shakespeare
Jane Austen
Honore de Balzac (now L. M. Montgomery)
Robert Louis Stevenson
Nathaniel Hawthorne
Washington Irving
Louisa May Alcott
Sir Walter Scott
Alfred Lord Tennyson
Charles Dickens
James Fenimore Cooper
Mark Twain
Henry W. Longfellow

Would you rather hear the story...

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...