Little Women 1994 Part 2 - Movies
Added 2023-11-30 16:26:24 +0000 UTCReleased to The Cats Meow/Meeow on Friday December 8th!!
Comments
I still have to read the book!!
Jessie Dobbie Reactions
2024-02-13 20:35:13 +0000 UTCI read that the author of Little Women didn't want Jo to be married but she was pressured by the publishing company to do so. They thought the book wouldn't sell if Jo wasn't married to a man. Me personally I would've preferred Jo to stay single, she just feels like the type that enjoy her own company with plenty of book but that's just me. I also read that the author Louisa May Alcott never married, which I think was pretty much unheard of back then. truly was an icon.
Her Limted
2024-02-12 18:03:49 +0000 UTCLittle Women (Comparison of both film adaptations from 1949 and 1994)- Thank you so very much for your beautiful reactions to both phenomenal adaptations of Little Women, Jessie! Movies based on a classic novel written by Louisa May Alcott... A Novel that is inspired by her real life. First... Little Women is inspired by Louisa May Alcott's real life, which is quite beautiful, and it makes me love this classic that much more. And Jo's character is based on herself, and the events of her own life. She herself was a writer. She went on to open a school, where her husband joined her in teaching. And Louisa did have three other sisters, one of whom sadly died of an illness she tragically never fully recovered from, which is where Beth's character was established from. As for which film adaptation I enjoy more... I absolutely love both of these movies for various reasons. I think they both have certain aspects I enjoy a bit more than the other, and they both have certain aspects that I like less than the other. However, if I have to choose which movie I prefer... I most definitely feel as you do, that 1949's adaptation is my favorite of the two. One... Because I grew up watching the 1949 adaptation since I was little, and because I feel that each of the characters overall were better established and more fleshed out. Especially Jo, Beth, Mr. Lawrence, and Aunt March. As well as the relationship between Beth and Mr. Lawrence, which I absolutely love within 1949's adaptation. I think that what 1994's adaptation is stronger for, is the relationship and romance between Jo and Professor Baher, which I absolutely love within this 1994 movie. Not that I don't love seeing Jo and Professor Baher in 1949's adaptation, because I absolutely do. I just feel that their romance in 1994's adaptation is stronger and more beautiful. And a lot of this is because Winona Ryder's and Gabriel Byrne's chemistry is incredible. I completely agree with you in regards to Beth being a more developed character, as well as her beautiful relationship with Mr. Lawrence being stronger, in 1949's adaptation. I absolutely love how their characters, and their stories are written. Beth's characters in both movies are wonderful. Both actresses playing Beth are wonderful too. I just wish we could have seen more with Beth, and her relationships with her sisters, as well as Mr. Lawrence. And I love how much more of a character Mr. Lawrence is in 1949's adaptation. Yes... The older man who gives Beth the piano in 1994's adaptation, is indeed Laurie's grandfather. I just really wish that he was more deeply established within this adaptation. You're right, that he doesn't even have a scene with Laurie at all in this movie, and it doesn't show the friendship and kinship grown between him and the March family. Overall... I love Jo and Professor Baher in both movies. But 1994's adaptation really dives more deeply with their characters, and you feel the chemistry between their actors more so in this movie. I especially love the scene between Jo and Professor Baher at the opera, which we don't even get in 1949's adaptation. We only see them afterwards as they return home. But in this scene within this movie, we really feel the love growing between them. You can see their love for one another in their eyes as they look at one another. And it's beautiful. I also love hearing Professor Baher describe to Jo what's happening in the opera so that she can understand it more. And yes... Aunt March is much more feisty in 1949's adaptation than she is here in 1994's adaptation, which is weird... Given that Aunt March in this movie is played by Mary Wicks, who is well known for playing very feisty and ornery characters in any movie I've ever seen her in. A few of Mary Wick's other movies that you would certainly recognize her from... White Christmas, The Music Man, Sister Act, Sister Act 2: Back in the Habit, and she's also the voice of the female gargoyle in Disney's, The Hunchback of Notre Dame. I absolutely love Mary Wicks. I just wish that she could have played Aunt March with more of the feistiness that I know Mary Wicks had been able to show in her time, before she sadly died quite some time ago now, in 1995. I love Meg in both movies. And I love both actresses playing Meg in these movies. I do like her better when played by Janet Leigh in 1949's adaptation because Meg is better written in it, but Trini Alvarado is really good too. And I love her romance with John Brooke. Again... I prefer their romance in 1949's adaptation. But I like them here in this movie as well. I do enjoy Amy for the most part in both movies. Even though she is actually played by three different actresses. I really love Elizabeth Taylor as Amy in 1949's adaptation, and I like that she is actually one of the third sister, not the youngest like she is here in 1994's adaptation. I do enjoy both Kirsten Dunst as younger Amy in the first half of this movie, and Samantha Mathis as older Amy in the second half. They're both really good. However, by having Amy played by two actresses in this movie, given the four year time jump in which Amy grows... I think this makes it a little more difficult for me to really connect with her character, like I can with Elizabeth Taylor as Amy. Now as for Amy's and Laurie's relationship... I completely agree with you regarding everything you talk about them being together. I really appreciate how their romance, and how they come to be married in 1949's adaptation is written. I think that the director and writers did just enough to establish them being together. I didn't need anymore, and feel the desire to see more between them. But here in 1994's adaptation... I feel like Amy and Laurie coming together is more weird than anything. And I do feel that their scenes together in this movie... ruins for me what I could appreciate in 1949's adaptation. I love Christian Bale, but I really don't care much for his dialogue delivery with Samantha Mathis when he's trying to get together with her, or how Laurie's character is even written later in the movie. I love Marmee in both adaptations. I do agree with you that Marmee in 1949's adaptation is a stronger written character than she is in 1994's adaptation. But I love her in both of them. Thank you so much once more for reacting to both film adaptations of this classic beloved novel for me, Jessie! I loved watching your reactions for the both of them. And I am so happy to see that you loved them both very much. I love that you and I agree on so much regarding the movies we watch together, including these two. And yes... These movies really do help get you into the Christmas spirit. :) You're wonderful, Jessie! Thank you! Sincerely, Heidi
Heidi Elizabeth Marcum
2023-11-30 21:28:29 +0000 UTC
