This is definitely the most special version of "Little Women" I've ever seen, and so special means the pros and cons are so prominent that I didn't know what to say for a long time. Greta Gerwig used this film to prove her talent as a writer and director. She has a lot of ideas and can bring many refreshing and even surprising ideas. But on the other hand, due to her lack of experience, these ideas are beyond her current ability, which makes it difficult for her to control the specific implementation of big ideas, and there are many problems. To put it simply, as the title says, there are good ideas but the realization is not satisfactory.
The most interesting thing about this film is that the strengths and weaknesses are almost concentrated in the same place, and sometimes the strengths are the source of the weaknesses. Therefore, each part below is discussed from the positive and negative sides.
1. The script
The most novel and distinctive feature of this film is undoubtedly that the script disrupts the chronological order of the original work, and the script is rearranged by a logical line of the director himself. Of course, this approach is very bold. So far, few film and television dramas that have adapted classic works dare to do so, and naturally high returns and high risks follow.
front:
I was originally very nervous about the rearrangement of the timeline, but after reading it, I found that it was okay (maybe because I am an old fan of the original book), and after watching the domestic release, everyone on the Internet basically said that they could understand it, which means that the director still did not let the whole story. confusion. And the use of warm and cold tones before and after is very interesting, not only to aid understanding, but also to make the audience's mood more in line with the plot. Then I found out that the sequence of this film is not random, but a lot of effort. It has a clear and novel logic line. It takes several major themes in women's lives as the main line, and separates the story units of the four sisters told in the original book. According to these themes, they are reconnected through time and space.
The best of these are two. One is the 20 minutes at the beginning, which clips together the important events that the sisters face each other, and cuts in from this, which lays a good foundation for the basic theme of their life stories. Get the audience's interest head-on.
The other is the line where the money issue is discussed in the middle. From Meg's vanity in the upper class, to her difficulty dealing with material desires after marriage, it shows that this is a problem that needs to be dealt with for a long time. Then it turned to Amy to discuss women's lack of economic autonomy. While expounding the inevitable meaning of money, it also gave Meg's story before a new interpretation from the perspective of women's social situation. And then turned to the beach trip, pointing out Amy's clear pursuit of the future since she was a child, and the relationship between Meg and Mr. Brooke, ending the previous two stories that went in different directions but revolved around the same theme .
This technique also takes emotional shaping to new heights at some point. The most obvious is the interactive editing of Beth's scarlet fever and eventual death, effectively making the audience feel that irreparable grief along with Joe's mood. And this feeling reaches its peak at the end of the two stories, when the same Joe walks downstairs - one is seeing his sister recover, the other is no longer, the contrast between the cold and warm tones is very disturbing. And then Joe said that he was lonely, but then he turned to Laurie to express his feelings to Amy, making the audience feel disappointed at once, "Ah, it's too late."
Negative: The negative question is divided into two parts
1, or the reordering mentioned above
As I said before, although the director is very creative, her ability is not enough to fully control. Therefore, the way of rearranging the story has the negative effect as much as the positive.
First of all, even if it's not too confusing, the time line jumping back and forth will definitely increase the difficulty for viewers who haven't read the original book. Fragmentation is an inevitable side effect. Although the director has constructed his own logic line, he still smashes the original book, so it will definitely make the audience feel that they are being pulled over. One story has not been digested, and another suddenly unfolds. , and it has been a long time since the follow-up to the previous story finally came.
This makes it difficult to feel immersive. To be honest, when I read the original book, many of the plots were moved every time I watched it, and most of the time when I watched the film, it was undisturbed. For example, my father was seriously ill and my mother left home until Beth contracted scarlet fever, which was a part of my dissatisfaction. In the original book, this is the sisters' first big crisis and the beginning of the tragedy in their lives. Because the tone of the front has always been relatively relaxed, the sudden change in the style of this painting touches the reader's emotions very much. But the movie can't do it, because a lot of heavy plots have been mixed and cut in front, and even Beth can't be spoiled in advance, so here we only make people expressionless "oh oh, yes oh".
Even the last tearjerker scene in which Beth fell seriously ill and died was beaten up too loosely and lost its strength. Joe got the news that his condition was worsening not long in the beginning, and then there was a whole lot of episodes before she got home to see Beth, and a whole lot more before she and Beth went to the beach for the last time, and then there were a lot of episodes. Towards the end of the whole bunch Beth died. The result is that each piece suddenly turns away before anyone can build the mood, the whole gradual sadness is not created, and the line would have failed if it weren't for the editing there at the end. (Although the original work is also chopped up, it is compact and concentrated in the latter paragraph, not scattered, so as not to let readers lose their feelings)
In addition, for the sake of time, when the original plot is cut, many passages will be scattered outside the new story line. In order to make them join the whole, the director had to use some symbolic objects or scenes as clues, but the effect was really not good.
I'll give a few examples: for example, when Laurie is accepted into the sister society and given the key to the mailbox, the image of the key is used as a clue to insert Joe's home. But the back mailbox is arranged to serve the love line of Joe and Laurie, so the key plot is inserted into the story line of Beth's serious illness, and it is too long since Joe used the mailbox to write love letters.
For example, when talking about the beach trip between the sisters and Laurie and their British friends, the beach is used as an image to turn to Joe taking Beth to the beach. However, there is nothing logically and emotionally in the two stories. Suddenly choked.
For example, from Joe cutting his hair and crying secretly, Amy comforted her and suddenly turned to the future. Amy told Laurie that she was not as good as Joe in her life but she didn't want to be looked down on, and then she returned to the original plot, which made people feel like Watching the TV and suddenly skipping the channel...
Even some clues are strange in their own right. For example, Joe complained that Amy was traveling abroad and stayed out of it when Beth was sick, and used this sentence to transfer Amy to burn Joe's manuscript. And what Beth said to Joe at the beach about giving, to Joe selling his hair to raise money. Although it is not illogical to say it, but it is very awkward, because it is not the same thing before and after. It’s like a food show is teaching braised pork, saying that the price of meat has gone up, and then suddenly it turns to the reason why the economic forum starts to talk about the price increase. Although this sentence can indeed connect the two, it’s just like this. It feels wrong.
2. The deletion, modification, arrangement and writing of some plots are not very appropriate
①. Improper deletion
If a book with a lot of content is made into a movie, a lot of plots will definitely be deleted. Here, it is a test of the grasp of the logic of the story. In this film, almost 60% of the plot of the first book was deleted, and 30% to 40% of the second book was deleted, and some of the remaining ones did not convey the original meaning but were scribbled. pass.
In the first book, Joe won the award to start a professional writing career, Laurie joked with gloves to awaken Meg's feelings, Meg married against her aunt for love, etc. It is more important, and the plots that have an impact on the later stories are all gone, and Many details of Laurie's deepening feelings for Joe have also been deleted. Although the problem is not too big, it still makes the various causes and consequences unclear, and of course the female growth that has been promoted has not been fully expressed.
And some of the deletions in the second book are a bit traumatic. For example, in the original book, Qiao lost the opportunity to go abroad for a while. Amy was gentle and generous and replaced it with smooth logic. In the film, these were deleted so that the old lady had clearly stated that she would take Qiao to go abroad. Without clearly explaining what was going on, the favor suddenly changed, and then it was replaced by Amy, which seemed abrupt as a whole. Although it didn't affect my understanding personally, I later found that many viewers who had not read the original book mistakenly thought that it was Amy who did something behind the scenes to steal the opportunity (especially the movie also originally exaggerated Amy's jealousy of Joe).
A bigger question is how Laurie and Amy came together abroad. Although the development in the original work is too fast, the fit between the two and the warming of their feelings are fairly clear. And in the movie...not only have the various plots of this line been cut out too many important passages, but also changed the ball scene and garden scene where Laurie has a new understanding of Amy, and the two The relationship develops in a very strange way...and then out of nowhere, suddenly they are together.
The bigger problem is that the story lines of Qiao and the professor have been deleted and changed to what the hell, this will be discussed later.
②, the location of the plot is improperly arranged
In order to simplify the plot, sometimes the story lines are merged. Some of these are handled well, like the story from Amy being beaten at school to March's house to Lawrence's house.
But some are bad. For example, the fact that Beth gives Mr. Lawrence shoes and then receives the piano and she is infected with scarlet fever is very difficult to understand. There are not many stories that originally belonged to Beth, and the touching nature of the two events is completely different, why do they have to mix it up. The development of her family relationship with Mr. Lawrence has already had the plot of her being invited to play the piano, so the delivery of shoes and the collection of the piano can be postponed, and the integrity is guaranteed.
And the part of her going to take care of the poor and getting sick focuses on shaping her kind image and opening a tragic line, which is completely different from the former, and it is very awkward to get together. When I saw this, I felt like I ate a bite of grilled fish. I just chewed a couple of times before I could taste it, and suddenly a big drumstick popped into my mouth. Both grilled fish and chicken thighs are delicious, but they are not eaten in this way. Mixing them together ruins the taste of both.
The previous version of the mini-series filmed by the BBC had this kind of chaotic plot and even ignoring logic. I also wrote a comment at the time to criticize this point. I was optimistic that the current version would not have that kind of mistakes. still have.
③, some plots themselves are full of slots
For example, Joe angered the professor, Laurie wanted Amy to be the pick-up man, and Joe regretted writing a love letter to Laurie because he was lonely but turned his head and was with the professor. These are too obvious to destroy the original book. Just to name a few smaller ones.
Laurie took the sisters home from the prom, and Joe took off his dress right in front of him...what's the matter? Even if it is to show that Qiao is not a person who pays attention to red tape, even if she has a very masculine style, a man would not take off his pants and reveal his long johns immediately after the outsider he met for the first time came to the house?
The March family went to the Lawrence's for the first time. The sisters sat down on the sofa without even saying hello to the master, and started chattering. What about the upbringing of your decent family? In the original book, even Joe, who was familiar with him, politely said a few words before letting go, and he didn't treat other people's houses as his own as in the film.
Amy criticizes Laurie's sluggish and lazy behavior at the dance. Because it was just a reunion, the atmosphere of the dance party in the original book was still very harmonious, but the movie moved the lines from the back to this place, and even made the two of them tear up in public. At that time, my jaw dropped to the ground.
Mr. Brook and the professor chatted awkwardly when they saw the girl they liked. I saw my toes digging. The two most stable characters were made to look stupid. is it necessary? It is not clever to have to use men to post up the charm of women.
And I really think that the writer and director should have changed the script after watching the BBC version. When Beth is going to take care of the poor, Joe's rant about "we can't get enough to eat ourselves" and Amy's foot stuck in a cast has been moved here, both inappropriately spoiling Beth's little angel The image also shakes the logic of the plot, all of which are original to the BBC version. My previous review for that edition talked about the inappropriateness of this treatment, but I didn't expect this movie to copy it.
(In addition, there is a small point. The overall shooting of the film, the big rhythm, the mirroring, etc. are very good, the only thing is that the rhythm in some specific plots is not very good.
For example, corresponding to the dialogue of the four sisters at the beginning of the original work, although the lines are basically from the book, the rhythm is too fast and the effect of presentation is insufficient. Because the role of those lines is to give the four sisters the first impression and lay down the basic characteristics of each person, there should be enough space for each sentence to make people feel the characters. However, in the film, there is a lot of talk at a very fast rate. Often the previous person has not finished speaking and the next person has already started, as if he is in a hurry. )
The characters and actors
1. Joe
I didn't even make a movie in this film and thought about it, if one day I'm going to make Little Women, I'll have Saoirse Ronan play Joe. Then the dream came true! Ronan also definitely lived up to everyone's expectations. His acting skills were super strong and his performance was perfect.
As the first female protagonist, Qiao's character traits such as aggressiveness, cheerfulness and generosity, independence but too impatience are all presented, and her feminist thoughts are also more clearly expressed than the original works of the 19th century, which is in line with the taste of contemporary audiences.
But there are two imbalances in her shaping that are huge flaws in my opinion.
The first is her temper.
To be honest, I was inexplicably surprised by her anger at the professor shortly after the opening chapter. Not to mention that in the original book, she listened carefully to the professor's opinion and then went back and thought about it, so she had a better impression of the professor and improved her writing level in the future. Even in the BBC version, which I thought was a little broken, she just told the professor that she wanted to save up. Money to treat my sister, I really never thought that this version would actually get worse.
Because I was looking forward to positive feedback, but the professor made it clear that I didn't like it and was disappointed. This feeling is understandable, but people with basic rationality will ask why first, right? Moreover, the professor first affirmed her talent without showing any contempt. How did she react in the resulting film - "You dare to judge others on what you have written", "You are nothing, just a low-level commentator who will be forgotten, and everyone will remember me" and so on, such as "You can do what you want" "Go on," the Internet troll-style mentally retarded lines rushed out, and it was hard to believe that it came from Joe's mouth. Without basic sanity and self-control, I almost thought she had suddenly lost her mind. What's especially terrifying is that Ronan's superb acting skills have become a reverse force here, amplifying the discomfort of this episode even more, and it's as bad as witnessing a mad dog barking. The problem is this is Little Women, and it's not Stephen King's omen...
After the incident of Amy burning a book and falling into the water, Qiao firmly vowed to control his temper, but it turned out to be good. In the past few years, he has not cultivated his heart, and it has become more serious. Did the director not realize that he was hitting the character's face?
In the second book of the original work, although Qiao still has the problem of being impatient and unable to control her tongue from time to time, it also clearly states that she has learned not to attack others, which is called growth and progress. As a result, the arrangement in the movie made the education she received from her mother, and the oath she swore directly became a joke. Of course, there will be friends who say that Qiao already liked the professor at that time, and he didn't hear the affirmation of the person he liked. Naturally, his mentality was unbalanced, but I wondered that there are many people in this situation. Is it all this virtue?
The second is emotional issues. Now that some viewers think she likes the professor, and there are hints in the movie, then she regrets rejecting Laurie later, and I am very dissatisfied with this part of writing a redemption letter. Because from reading this book, what I have always loved about Jo is her strong rationality and clear awareness of her heart. And these are badly damaged in the film.
Let's take a look at the part where she talks to her mother about her loneliness. The dialogue in the original takes place when they have learned that Laurie and Amy are engaged, and the mother sees Joe alone and regrets that she agreed with Joe to reject Laurie, because Joe could have had someone who loved her support her during this difficult time. Joe's response was, " No, Mom, that's for the best. But you're right about one thing, I'm lonely, so if Teddy comes back and tries again, I'll probably say yes, but not because I love him more. but because I want to be loved more than ever. ”
Take a look at Joe's rationale from this passage. She is honest about her loneliness and vulnerability, admitting that in this state, she may really accept unloved objects for a warmth. But the reason why she said this was because she knew that it was impossible for her to happen, it was just self-analysis. So even if Laurie did come back to propose, she probably wouldn't say yes. Laurie had actually asked at least two more times before that, but she had refused. Even in the most difficult moments of her heart, she has a firm sense of responsibility to herself and others without succumbing to her emotions, which is in line with her previous sober rejection of Laurie.
And look at the movie. She is lonely and wants to be loved. She actively expressed regret in the conversation with her mother, and made it clear that if Laurie came back to propose, she would agree (not even the word "maybe", the mentality of CP fans is too obvious) , but when her mother asked her if she loved Laurie, she just avoided it, showing that she knew she didn't. Then she said, "I care more about being loved, I want to be loved." Please savor this sentence. Although it is the same sentence, the position has been changed, and the context has been deleted, but it has changed 180°. Obviously, when she refused to propose marriage, it was not only for herself, but also for Laurie, which was a big highlight of her character, but the current script, combined with the fact that the professor she really liked at this time, adapted her to be selfish. And lack of sense of responsibility, personally snuffed out this bright spot.
And the letter she wrote to Laurie, which was originally written in the movie, not only falsely promoted Laurie's emotional importance to her, but also "I used to think that being a wife was a bad fate, when I was too young and ignorant. "I don't like you, but I rejected you because feminism burned my brain, and now I realize that I'm really stupid." It also overturned the rationality that had shaped her for a long time. . So I'm really disgusted that Joe and Lauri Lalang have to be paired, and then they can't completely split with the original, so they don't rely on both sides, and it becomes a cheap bloody drama.
The whole look makes people feel that, after so many years from the beginning of the story to the present, why has Joe regressed instead of making no progress at all?
2. Amy
As opposed to Joe, I like Amy's adaptation.
Amy has always been a vase in the previous versions, especially when she grew up as an adult, the plots showing her charm were all deleted, and it became plain water in the later stage, which was unsatisfactory. And this version wisely taps into her benefits, elevates her to the second heroine, mirrors Qiao at the ideological level, and also achieves what the original book wanted to express.
Although a lot of scenes have also been deleted, and some places are a bit abrupt, the script focuses on and reminds her a realistic and calm side earlier. After seeing the world, she has no illusions about her talents and is sober about the situation of women Knowing and working on it immediately (for example, her line for the British boy on the beach trip is very clever), that section on the relationship between women and property is an original plot that I personally like very much. And on top of that, her inner tangle, her love for Laurie and her complicated feelings for Joe are also prominently presented, making the character much fuller than previous versions.
And then there's actor Florence Pugh, an absolute surprise. When the role was just announced, many people were not optimistic about her, because there was a big gap between her appearance and the slender snow-white porcelain doll in the original work, and her temperament did not seem to match. I admit that I was worried at the time, but I was mainly worried about the appearance, and because I had seen her other films, I was rather relieved about the acting. Facts have proved that she is indeed an excellent actor, from the charming and slightly pretentious as a child to the calm and elegant in adulthood. The Amy presented not only does not deviate from the original work, but also adds the icing on the cake that belongs to the actor himself. features. So when I watch her scenes, I can often let go of the original book and think "this is her Amy".
3. Laurie
Like Joe, I had long expected Sweet Tea to play Laurie, because there was no one else better in appearance and temperament.
Tiancha is responsible for his beauty, and his acting skills are also good. It is really a seductive landscape to see him play the ancients.
Then there's nothing to brag about, I really don't like the adaptation of this character. The story of Laurie's charisma and growth in the first book was almost completely deleted except for the beginning, and many important scenes about his emotional changes in the second book were also deleted. So he is, after all, a vase in this film.
What's worse is that in the back, he was also made to collapse by some original plots. For example, when you are drunk, your clothes are messy at the ball, and you are like walking around a kiln, and then you are drunk and crazy at Amy, and you humiliate them in public, which is confusing. Although it can be explained that it is very painful for him to fall out of love, it is absolutely useless to make a character with a good education and a good heart to do so.
Here I have to move the original again. How does Laurie behave at this dance in the novel, polite, dazzling but nonchalant, uncharacteristically complimenting Amy not like family but like an outsider, making Amy realize something is wrong all at once. In this way, it makes people feel that everyone is acting as a son, and it stands out against the movies. In "A Dream of Red Mansions", why did Mother Jia stop listening to the story of a talented and beautiful woman, because it did not conform to the rules and upbringing of that class. In "The Leopard" (the background happened to be the same era as Little Women), which was actually shot by the aristocratic director Visconti, the male protagonist saw the girls at the dance just running and chatting, and criticized them for being like monkeys. So watching Laurie's behavior in the movie again will directly cause him to die socially, how could it possibly appear.
But I didn't expect it to be the worst. What completely left me speechless was the scene in the garden. After he continued to be criticized by Amy, it was not the scene in the original book where he silently reflected on himself and greatly increased his affection for Amy, but "don't promise him" + touch his face, and then Amy was surprised, "You use me as a spare tire?!"
What a mess of original plots! Think you've ruined Laurie enough? And there's no telling when Laurie fell in love with Amy again. Of course, the relationship between the two of them developed too fast in the original book, but at least Laurie had his own chapter devoted to his psychological changes, which was deleted from the movie and turned him into a flirtatious guy who just broke up and found a new home. .
4. Meg
Meg's adaptation is alright. There is nothing particularly eye-catching but there is no fault. The plot focuses on the two themes of "marriage is also a choice" and "how to deal with material desires", which is relatively clear. Emma Watson's acting skills are relatively weak in the cast, but her appearance is as high as ever, so it is more suitable for Meg to give her a beautiful and simpler role. But her acting skills really haven't improved much, and you can see it even in this film. For example, when she blurted out to her husband that she was tired of being poor and then anxious and regretful, the emotion was obviously not conveyed properly.
5. Beth
As I said before, the inappropriate handling of some plots has destroyed the character of this character. Even Eliza's good acting skills have not allowed Beth to truly present the pure and noble, holy angel-like character in the original work. At most, she is just a kind and ordinary girl, and she has no features like chicken ribs among the sisters, and her strong tragicness has also been greatly diluted.
For example, in the movie, when the mother was going to help the poor at Christmas, Beth said, "Will Dad let us do this?", and later when she went by herself, she first said, "Mom wants us to do this." These two original sentences The lines cut down on her subjectivity. In the original novel, she didn't hesitate at all at this time, she took the lead at all, which showed her extremely noble personality. Joe's rant, mostly taken from the BBC version, "We can't get enough of ourselves" is even more unnecessary, making Beth seem hypocritical and kind.
If you put aside the whole thing, some parts are taken out separately, especially the parts on the beach and in the hospital bed when Beth died, Eliza still performed very well. However, after all, the plot is to be combined into an overall structure. In the original work, Beth's later story progressed layer by layer, with waves of tears after waves. Reading it was a bit like watching the last few episodes of Clannad, but in this film I Couldn't really feel the emotion.
6. Comments on some other characters
Mrs March is very good, a level higher than the original. In the book, she is a good mother and teacher who has always been loving and understanding, and Laura Dern's performance in the film further enriches the role. The exhaustion that sometimes flickers on her face and the pain she represses in her heart, these micro-expressions are very subtle and very admirable. From the appreciation of performance, she, Saoirse and Florence are the three pillars of the film.
Aunt March, many scenes have been deleted, so although Meryl Streep's acting skills are undoubtedly strong, there is little room for performance. But some lines, like "That's because I'm rich" are still funny. The only thing that's awkward is that in the original book, she was my father's aunt, but here it was changed to my father's unmarried sister. According to the inheritance law, she will not receive more wealth as a daughter than her father, and now she is a very rich man, but her father became poor very early. So how much money did Dad lose in doing good deeds?
Professor and Mr. Brooke, terrible. These two stable and warm men are in charge and are adapted so that their mother does not recognize them. The cuts of the scenes were very powerful, and most of the scenes that showed their personality charm were gone. I just saw them chatting awkwardly like a dog, and then somehow they got the girl's love (Professor is the worst, the original author is Qiao Zhizhi The ideal man he created was deleted and edited so badly in this film that it was really not convincing that Joe fell in love with him after sending a set of Shakespeare's plot. If it weren't for the two actors' own style to support the scene, I almost felt that the director had a grudge against them.
The theme of feminism
This is the core part, and in my opinion, it is also the most double-edged sword of the whole film.
front:
The story of Little Women is traditionally about the growth of women, but in the time capacity of the film, a lot of growth details have to be deleted, it is difficult to reflect the big theme, so a more ingenious method is to cut out a novel theme. Focus on telling, and that's exactly what the film does.
When this film first came out, some people thought that its focus on feminism was deliberately catering to the current trend, but after watching it, you will find that although some original lines expressing feminism are indeed intentional, most of them are not rigid and are integrated with the story. well done. Some original plots are also used very well. For example, the editor said to Qiao that "the female character must get married", "When will she get married?", making Qiao very helpless, etc., borrowing the original author's own experience, the theme communicated more clearly. In fact, although the original work does not explicitly state it, it has strong feminist ideas, and many viewpoints transcend that era, and are not outdated even today. Joe, in particular, has a sense of independence and a fighting spirit that is completely different from traditional values. He is a fighting character, and the film also digs deeply.
And the story doesn't stop there, it also talks about the choices of other women, looking at different groups comprehensively. For example, Meg chose the more common life at the time and was willing to be a traditional woman, and she had to make a lot of running-in and efforts to protect this choice.
Amy is a step up from the original. Like Qiao, she also recognizes the essence of male-dominated society, but after thinking about her ability and ideals in life, she does not plan to fight, but instead uses it for her own use. Of course, this requires her to continuously cultivate the ability to maximize benefits in the framework of the sexes, and at the end of the story, to learn to balance utility and heart. It made her performance even better.
These are all well conveyed by the film.
Negative:
However, it is precisely because of the focus on feminism that the negative impact of some selfishness of the director is particularly obvious.
One of the main problems is that the director is obviously a CP fan of Joe × Laurie, and he even does not hesitate to create some plots that I don't agree with. Later, the propaganda of this film always tried to bind them. Our country simply played their couple's card. It was originally planned to be released on Valentine's Day, which is really inappropriate. What I've always emphasized when discussing Little Women with others is, don't fall into their trap, or at least don't think the original book is meant to match them. Once you decide in your heart that they should be the target, it is difficult to accept the idea of the subsequent plot and the story.
The author never thought of Qiao Laolian, and from the beginning to the end of the original book, Joe and Laurie did not have any more than a buddy relationship, not even the slightest hint, only Laurie shaves his head and picks up his son. After the first book was published, many readers who were driven by the habit of thinking that "you should get married as a childhood sweetheart" strongly urged Joe and Laurie to marry, but the author would rather create another professor than do that kind of operation despite the risk.
↑Although this picture is always used as their CP propaganda, in fact, it really illustrates the problem - men are intentional, women are ruthless.
Is the author deliberately going against the routine? Yes, she just wanted to reverse the popular romantic novels at that time, such as "Bamboo Horse Becomes Husband" and "Handsome and Noble Young Master Falls in Love with Me", which limited women to passive roles in marriage and love. What she opposed was precisely Qiao in the back of the movie. The kind of women's predicament that is critical. In the novel, only Laurie himself takes the initiative, and readers therefore think that Joe should fall in love and should accept it. This invisible male-dominated thinking is exactly what the author does not approve of.
So Joe's rejection of Laurie is, in my opinion, the most feminist aspect of the book. Joe ignores the so-called "happiness" of the world, and is not influenced by money, family background, and looks that are valued by the general public, and even Laurie loves her, has a good character, and knows the bottom line. Picky terms, still useless here with Joe.
In addition to not loving this, Joe, as a nineteenth-century woman, is rarely able to rationally analyze the mismatch in temperament, living habits and values between the two from a self-perspective. On the contrary, Laurie is impulsive and emotional. , which rejected the popular belief at the time that women were "more emotional and more suitable for letting rational men make decisions instead".
Qiao is loyal to her heart and won't settle for the world that makes it difficult for women to be themselves. As long as she doesn't love and is inappropriate, she won't compromise. That's why I admire her so much. And many readers don't realize that they think Laurie is good, Joe Lau should be together, Joe is written as if he doesn't love him, it's not right, it's the author's deliberate stunt (I don't know how many such ideas as an old fan of novels) , this kind of thinking just ignores that women can have their own values and preferences, and there is no need to follow the crowd. So the two people didn't get together. In my opinion, it was by no means blunt, but a natural result, with no regrets and no intentions.
As a result, the adaptation of her later in the movie ruined it all. Joe does go through the mental shift from simply not getting married to thinking about marriage in the book, but it's all through the professor, not Laurie. Instead, transplanting these into Laurie, whom Jo clearly did not love and had rejected, betrayed her worth. As I said before, this kind of hard-fed approach is seriously damaging to Joe's sanity, sense of responsibility, and self-awareness. It seems inappropriate to me that the editor and director want to talk about women's independent thinking, but at the same time fall into this superficial romance novel style.
After that, the story fell apart. The professor who was supposed to be the male protagonist at the emotional and ideological level of Qiao obviously could not be favored by the director, and was deleted and edited in the front to lose his sense of existence, so when faced with the matter of Qiao marrying the professor, the director couldn't control it. In the original work, Qiao is not disturbed by the weak points that are valued by the world, such as being old, not wealthy, and ordinary appearance. Respect (although Laurie is a fairly good man, he is not as good as a professor. For example, when he was rejected at the beginning of his marriage proposal in the book, he deceived himself and said, "Women are always like this, so please hold back and refuse first, and play with men", although It is an impulsive word, and it can also be seen as a kind of unconsciousness in a patriarchal society for a long time, and the professor will not be like this). Joe is attracted by these to have true love, and it is also an important manifestation of her female sense of autonomy.
Although the professor is a temporary character, the author is definitely not fooling things. Instead, he vividly and detailedly portrays a man who is ideal in the mind of Joe—and herself as a prototype—and has him and Joe in New York. There is sufficient time together, and the emotional development is reasonable and reasonable. After that, Joe accepted the marriage because of him, but he did not lower the standard to the kind of "as long as someone loves me" in the movie. In the book, she also played a leading role in her career after marriage. She did not have the kind of wife who was a husband and wife. This is definitely the highlight of her as a representative of feminism. Why Joe would marry a "bad old man" contemporary reader.
Then relative to the details of the original, the film becomes very weak. It only mentioned that the professor sent the book and affirmed Qiao's talent, and did not mention anything else. Joe's distant view of the professor in the theater and the fact that they danced together later were not enough to highlight the development of the two. The director simply deliberately wanted to tell everyone that the professor was just a role that she had to keep, and made Joe and him break up without much budding relationship. At the end, the professor suddenly jumped out (it was said that he was scolded so bloody and ran to the door again), but except for playing the piano, he did not show any charm. As a result, Joe began to stare, and the whole family was inexplicably Be optimistic and keep brainwashing Joe "you just love him" like a pyramid scheme. It's too weird here, so at the beginning, many people speculated that Amy was desperately encouraging her to chase after the professor because Laurie was afraid of Joe's resurgence (PS: Amy's appearance in this section is ugly).
Losing the foreshadowing in the original book, from the basic logic, Joe will not suddenly fall in love (don't forget that she just wrote a letter saying that life can't be without Laurie), but then we see her like a The Huaichun girl ran in the rain to find a confession to the professor, and by the way returned to the chapter in the original book. what the hell
The director probably also realized that it was a bit unreasonable to delete too much of the professor's personality, so he was obviously a 40-year-old ordinary-looking German uncle, and he insisted on finding a handsome young French guy (it is also said in the film that he is very handsome) to carry out the process. Visually appealing. As a result, this deliberate enhancement of appearance has harmed Joe's more emphasis on the inner setting.
So in order to solve this problem, the director played a clever trick at the end, but it was self-defeating at this point - the original author was integrated. Of course, there is no professor in reality, and the professor is not in the plan. It is just a compromise for the public. So the movie actually has two endings, most of my friends should have seen it too, one is a happy ending, and the other is a hidden ending: the former is just the plot of the book written by Joe, and the marriage with the professor did not happen. , even professors may not exist.
Why do I say that this design could have been clever but is now self-defeating. If the previous plot has not been changed, then this paragraph can subtly highlight the confrontation between feminists who are not attached to marriage and love and the social atmosphere, but at the same time it also establishes an acceptable male image, showing Joe (the author) Diversified think. However, the reality is that the script has been changed abruptly and bluntly, and interpreting it as Joe wrote the story can only make people feel that "her writing level is not very good". And then related to the original author, what do you think? People who haven't read the original book may really think that the novel is so poorly written. Although it highlights the stubbornness of the conservative social atmosphere, it also degrades the ability of others.
Since the director is inexperienced and the level of adaptation is not enough, they should not change it blindly. As a result, they use other people's novels to make movies, and the author is buried and eliminated.
Next is a small question, which is my personal nitpicking rant. It's just that the film is a bit contrived when it conveys feminist ideas in some places. One of the things I noticed in particular was when the March family went to the Lawrence's, and when it came to Amy being beaten at school, Mr. Brooke interjected that he also thought women shouldn't be educated outside, and Meg immediately retorted that it was because of the women's educational environment Difference. Of course, it's okay to watch the movie alone. It expresses that women are discriminated against in all directions. Anyway, Brook is also a supporting role. But he is just the opposite in the original work, a character specially set by the author with a certain sense of progress.
In the original work, when Miss England looked down on Meg as a governess, Mr. Brooke calmly replied that "American girls are independent". Although Mr. Brooke is still a traditional male after marriage, he is different from ordinary people in that he places special emphasis on equality with Meg. The novel mentioned the two conflicts between the two, and he insisted on rational conversation and analysis as much as possible. Occasionally, a masculine attitude appeared in his heart and he immediately suppressed it. He was actively involved in parenting after having a baby and it worked well (instead Meg didn't let him have the baby at first and ended up getting so tired that she almost got postpartum depression).
When the couple were talking, when Meg asked him about politics, he did not "what do women know about politics" like most men, but read the election essay carefully and explained it patiently. Then he thought that the interests of the other party should also be respected, so he took the initiative to ask Meg for advice on fashion topics. Thinking about it this way, he is much stronger than most contemporary men. Of course it was because of his qualities that Meg fell in love with him, and the two were able to achieve spiritual harmony. The author wrote such a male character, and it is from the perspective of women, showing the public to the level that men could have been promoted to, indicating that feminist ideas are universal and can cross gender barriers, which is beneficial to both men and women. of.
The movie deleted all these, and Brooke was at most just a "wife-loving man", and couldn't see a better place. And the original line goes against the original purpose for which this character was created, and the professor didn't show it well, which narrowed the way of feminist discussion in the original work.
Basically, these are the thoughts on the script and characters of the work.
(I know there must be some people who think that I mention the original book too much when I criticize, but friends who think so don’t have to say, “Movies and novels are different art forms. Movies only need to move people. If you say You have to copy the original work, then you don’t have to shoot it.” The novel of Little Women is realistic and daily-oriented, and there is not much artistic treatment, so there is no art form that cannot be incompatible with film and television dramas. A movie Of course, it is not necessary to completely reproduce the novel, but at least the good parts of the original should not be changed when adapting. Moreover, if the film is a flower, the original is the root, and the flower without the root will not live for long. )
—————————————————————————————————
Now, as a costume researcher, I'm going to start ranting about the rhythm violently.
How can this film's sloppy costumes win an Oscar? ? ? Are the judges blind? ? ?
The costume designer of the film is Jacqueline Duran, and I was stunned when I learned that she came to design the film, but I never expected that the finished product was worse than I imagined, which made me feel bad for Duran for the rest of my life. .
First, the shape is outrageous
Duran has always liked to give himself gold. The costumes used in the 2005 edition of "Pride and Prejudice" were obviously not in line with history, and he was still talking about his own grasp of the times in interviews (this one can be found in my article list. Arts). This time, the little woman won the award. In addition to herself, there are a lot of domestic and foreign media to follow the trend, and even dare to say that "she accurately restored the times". How dare you blow it out.
It should be very clear from the stills. Everyone should be familiar with the Crinoline skirts in the 1860s. There are a large number of photos, clothing drawings and even physical objects that have been preserved. Just a search can be counted, and the difference is obvious. Especially Saoirse's clothes, most of which are of contemporary decadence, like a gypsy who fell into soot. Every time she appears, she is like a time-travel character.
If you don't want to look at historical materials, you can also look at film and television dramas with the same background and well-dressed costumes for comparison. "The Leopard", "Cold Mountain", the '94 version of "Little Women" are all excellent, and the recent "Hot Air Balloon" starring Felicia and Little Freckles is also very good, really talk about the times Feeling, all hang the film.
To make matters worse, the extras in many of the group scenes in the film also wore historically rented costumes, making it even more obvious that the protagonist did not know where he came from. You can pay special attention to the dance scene where Joe and Laurie got to know each other. The clothes of the sisters are completely different from the more elegant costumes rented around, which makes people uncomfortable.
Second, the workmanship is poor.
Several pieces of clothing could not even fit well. If they were worn too wide for a slender person, they would create folds at the waist, and if they were too tight for a strong person, they would appear larger and rounder at the waist and folded. Florence, who played Amy, was the hardest hit area. She had a relatively strong figure. The clothes in the later period seemed to be one size smaller than her own. They were all tight, but they were also matched with small white flowers, for fear that she was not thick enough. .
I'll take another piece that just fits here. The antique white outdoor outfits of that era are a good one for everyone. The contrast is tragic.
There are also some shoulders, armpits, and waist tailoring that are not in place, which is particularly timid. In the scene where Meg was at the ball, Emma raised her arms, and she was wearing clothes that didn't even have sleeves made of them, so ugly!
Amy was already a lady in the later period. In this picture, her skirt was not even stitched, and it was wrinkled.
Third, the color difference is huge.
Especially for women's clothing, it's either a gray, dirty, muddy color, or a sweet fluorescent color. Occasionally, a few clean colors turned into a shabby feeling. All kinds of dirty colors can be matched to make you inexplicably irritable, and the mixture of gray-brown, yellow-green, and purple-brown is especially blinding.
And this shabby feeling is not in line with the Ma Qi family's not rich setting, but simply because the designer's color matching ability is poor. For example, dressing Meg, who loves beauty, in the darkest and most old-fashioned clothes of various colors reduces Emma Watson's appearance by a lot.
And Amy's prom dress, dark green with dark yellow trim...
It's this set, I'm going crazy, it's a talent to be so scary.
When the film was promoted before, the director and the actors also came out and made a video to praise the designers for their greatness. For example, Duran told them that there was grass green in the middle of the nineteenth century, and they knew a lot... Please, What is a fashion designer without this knowledge? ?
Fourth, the fabric is not good
Except for the color and pattern, it doesn't look good, and the texture is not good. The protagonists, especially the heroine's daily clothes are mostly made of rags. What's even scarier than that is the prom that Meg attended. The dresses were not only hot in color, but also in terrible texture. The sheen was like the cheap chemical fiber that my family used to cover the TV with, and the plastic feeling was overwhelming.
Duran's poor ability to select materials is consistent, so the clothes she designs (especially ancient costumes) have a late bonus in the movie, and they are particularly timid when they are put on the real exhibition.
Look at the clothes in Pride and Prejudice
The black dress from "Anna Karenina"
In the "Beauty and the Beast" she designed before, the dress that Emma wore at the final dance was so badly textured that it couldn't be saved in the later stages of the movie.
And Belle's classic yellow dress was also eclipsed in the exhibition.
As for the costume exhibition of "Little Women", it was a lousy one.
5. Worst of all, designers have a superficial understanding of characters and plot
Duran made this mistake when he was doing "Pride and Prejudice" and has not changed it to this day. For example, she thinks that Joe is a masculine, free and unrestrained character, so Saoirsa is dressed in various ways, sometimes even the collar is not well groomed, and with messy hair, those who don't know think she is a homeless. I really don't get it, when does being masculine and informal means dressing sloppy and indecent like a slapper? Is it really okay to still engage in stereotyped masculinity these days?
For example, the designer felt that Laurie was depressed and became dissolute after being rejected from marriage, so he made him wear a suit when he appeared in public, but there was an inexplicable rag-like scarf around his neck.
For example, where Joe cut her hair, she took off her hat to reveal her short hair, which should have been very impactful. As a result, Duran designed a beggar hat for her, and everyone could see at a glance that there was no long hair underneath.
And in some places Duran further enhanced the director's misunderstanding of the story.
For example, the high-end dance that Meg attended, my god, the tawdry color scheme and the crude design were simply made into a macaron magic fairy castle on purpose. Especially the costumes that were rented at the dance party in front of you were completely incomparable. But what does this mean? Attracting people only by appearance is destined to be superficial and lack of female independence? People who are not feminist are very vulgar? But the upper class will not lose its aesthetics even if it is superficial. Meg's bad behavior here is obviously because she is flirtatious and frivolous, and there is nothing wrong with good clothes, why is it designed to be such a virtue.
Then there's Joe and Laurie, who wear couple's vests and swap them later. Duran said in the interview that this is to show that Joe and Laurie are two people, soul mates, born to be a pair... ok, the director has already done a bad job by insisting on CP, and you are even worse. . I would ask, if it was a natural pair, why would it be dismantled?
So for the design of this film, I don't even want to give it a passing grade.
However, none of the above makes me much more angry than what I'm about to say next.
You know, as the costume design union award, which is the outpost of the Oscar's Best Costume Award (basically, the nomination and the winner of the Oscar are inseparable here), there is no little woman in the nomination at all, which means that the judges in the industry are all Can't watch this movie. If you want me to say, isn't it a matter of course that this kind of rottenness can't be nominated? The nominees for this session of the trade union award are very strong, and the two most recognized competitors are "Jojo Rabbit" and "Downton Abbey" (Tangjiatun is the only nominee for costumes, and there may be Oscars who prefer costumes. more competitive), the final winner is Jojo Rabbit.
Then the magic happens. The extremely elegant and beautiful Downton Abbey, the Oscar's best costume is a big hit, and many foreign costume bloggers are looking forward to it, but the result is not in the nomination at all. And "Little Women", which didn't even get in at the Union Awards, replaced it. (On the other hand, it is quite puzzling that "Joker", which has no clothing advantage at all, replaced "Rocketman")
The only costume movie that can be played was killed by Little Women, so what's next. Several other nominees, such as The Irishman and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, are also excellent, not to mention the union award-winning Jojo Rabbit. Generally speaking, even if there are no ancient costume competitors, there is still a regular winner, who is a lot stronger than the little woman with a lot of problems, but they are all defeated by this thing.
To tell the truth, the sudden win of
View more about Little Women reviews
