Any Wokeness Added?
The trailer has a guy “mansplaining” to her about her book... not something I remember with the 94 version. Did they add bits of modern day feminism to this? Like so many other movies.
shareI saw the movie on Christmas Day, The answer to me is "yes and no." It always was a feminist book dealing with a specific time in American history where women were expected to conform to a very narrow acceptable lifestyle. I don't think they went over the top promoting that theme, although there was some of it and I thought the scene was interesting where Jo and her publisher discussed the ending to her book - creating the happy ending he wanted.
I was irritated when Marmee stated that she had never been proud of her country - not a direct quote, but close and I thought that was preachy.
Saying 'it was always was a feminist book' is like shooting a Muslim version of Buddha's life and saying that it didn't change because 'it was always a religious story'.
Modern woke feminism has barely any relation with the classic feminism. They're different ideologies, to the point that classic feminists like Camille Paglia are considered nowadays part of anti-feminism. If you 'rewrite' Little Women to adapt it to modern woke agenda, what you're doing is changing the book.
Have you seen the movie? I never said it was rewritten to promote a modern agenda. Except for the way the story was told with flashbacks and the scene with the editor/publisher, it's still basically the same story. I hesitated seeing it because I did expect it to be in-my-face wokeness and surprisingly, it wasn't.
The only line in the entire movie that I thought was questionable was the quote from Marmee.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i10aNmmXYsQ
shareOk - and that is offensive because????? It was very much the truth when this story was told. Amy is only saying what most women of the time thought. Why does that bother you?
Have you ever read Gone With the Wind? Margaret Mitchell says just about the same thing multiple times in another story set roughly during the same time in American history. I suppose you think that is woke also?
■ "and that is offensive because?????"
You'll know. I said it was woke, not "offensive". No idea why you ask me.
■ "Amy is only saying what most women of the time thought."
Nope. That's a woke myth. Women were even more conservative than men.
■ "Margaret Mitchell says just about the same thing multiple times in another story set roughly during the same time in American history"
Scarlett in Gone with the Wind is a different character from a different novel from a different author from a different century. Gone with the Wind was published barely 80 years ago.
■ "I suppose you think that [Margaret Mitchell] is woke also?"
Nope. Margaret Mitchell pushed some early XXth century ideogy in a XIXth story (she didn't push it too much, though, that's why the story works), while 'Wokeness' is a later ideology/religion that wouldn't appear until late XXth century. It's a different ideology, and it's far more invasive, to the point of being proselytizing and closer to a religion than to an ideology
Last post on this.
I said offensive because you seem to be offended by wokeness and claim the movie is woke. I disagree.
You need to read up on history. What Amy states is very true of the time - married women had few legal rights and many did marry for the reasons she states. If women were conservative it is because they were forced to be - they had few options. I don't see this as woke when she is simply stating the truth.
Gone With the Wind was written almost 100 years ago - mid 1920's when Mitchell was laid up with a broken ankle although it wasn't published until the 1930's. Margaret Mitchell knew and spoke to people who were alive in the 1860's and was able to tell the story from a firsthand perspective. Scarlett breaking the mold most women in the 1860's were supposed to conform to was one of the major themes of the novel. I see nothing in the book that represents 20th century ideology - whatever the hell that is.
I will end on - we will just have to disagree - which is fine. I liked the movie.
He just wanted you to confirm his beliefs. He had no interest in an honest discussion. He just wanted to bash "modern feminism". Most likely he has anger issues with females.
shareHe had no interest in an honest discussion. [...] Most likely he has anger issues with females.
So you accuse me of having no interest in an honest discussion... and right after that, you start attacking and insulting me, and probably you weren't even aware of the contradiction 😂 share
■ "What Amy states is very true of the time - married women had few legal rights..."
Women didn't have few legal rights. They had different legal rights. They had less freedom, that's true, but at the same time they were far more protected than men.
Let's not forget that while the female character is throwing her speech about how oppressed she feels in her luxury house, her father is crawling in the mud in the FUCKING WAR. You know, old good "white male privilege".
Of course, the character in the movie is a woke rewritten version. In the XIXth century they were very aware of the war, and they had a team mindset instead of the modern 'me, me, me, oh me'
■ "...and many did marry for the reasons she states."
People married for a much simpler reason: marriage and children bring happiness for both husband and wife.
■ "If women were conservative it is because they were forced to be"
Of course. Poor women, they were mind-controlled and couldn't think for themselves. So let's have a male like you do the thinking for them, isn't it? Ah, modern woke feminism! 😂
■ "I don't see this as woke when she is simply stating the truth."
She's stating a religious belief you share, so you logically consider it the "truth". The problem is that they're rewriting an existing XIXth book to adapt it to a new religious set of beliefs.
kuku--you are right on every one of your points. But you are attempting to reason with religious fanatics whose view of history and literature is distorted by their irrational 21st century ideological beliefs. They don't care about Alcott's "Little Women". They want a "Little Women" that checks the boxes of their social justice agenda, and apparently the current film does just that. The irony that the tool they use for pushing their beliefs is a novel by a female author who enjoyed a great deal of critical and financial success in the 19th century seems to be over their heads.
share"her father is crawling in the mud in the FUCKING WAR"
No he wasn't. He was an army chaplin.
https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/chaplains-in-the-civil-war.html
"But the work of chaplains, both North and South, often went beyond just the spiritual needs of their flocks. As Steven Woodworth points out in his book, While God Is Marching On, chaplains fulfilled a variety of duties including that of courier, postal clerk, carpenter, nurse, gunrunner, and soldier.
Let's not forget that while the female character is throwing her speech about how oppressed she feels in her luxury house, her father is crawling in the mud in the FUCKING WAR. You know, old good "white male privilege".
Well, we know at least that Jo would have willingly joined the army if she'd been a boy. She found it more appealing than just being a perfect lady at home. share
She found it more appealing than just being a perfect lady at home.
NOBODY finds the war appealing, not if you have to be a soldier in the frontline. Nobody.
Many men will do it willingly because they feel it's their duty to their country, their people and their family. But the war itself, appealing??? Being in a trench, starving, shivering with cold, while you watch your friend trying to hold his guts with his hands, knowing that maybe you'll be the next one. Appealing? Are you nuts???
That's the problem with woke agenda: they make illiterate women think that men's life was some kind of videogame. And so you have people like you saying things like she would find the war more appealing.
The fucking war. Appealing.
Damn.
share
I didn't say that Jo would have liked the war, if she'd gotten there and seen what it was like for real. But like many boys at the time, she seemed to look at the notion of it (but not the reality of it, as she didn't really know it) as a glorious adventure. Of course, that is what people wanted young men to feel until the 20th century: that joining the army and signing up for a war was a brave and noble thing to do. That is how they got so many soldiers in the first place.
shareshe seemed to look at the notion of it (but not the reality of it, as she didn't really know it) as a glorious adventure
Again, NOBODY thought the war was some kind of glorious adventure.
You know why men got the vote? It wasn't because some heteropatriarchal conspiracy. In most western countries, democratic vote was linked to wars: men go to war to defend and protect something that is theirs. The democratic vote was a way to handle out the property of the country. And having soldiers that were willing to fight made a big difference. That was actually one of the keys of Napoleon's military success.
Until then, you had to hire people to chase after your own soldiers (and kill them if necessary) so they would advance towards the enemy instead of running from them. I'm not kidding. That happened during WW2 too, in the Red Army. That probably will happen in the next war, since in western countries people feel that those countries don't belong to them anymore, and aren't willing to fight for them:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/da/11/54/da115452b959ad8ff433e7a8aaaee0e2.png
Nobody thought the war was a glorious adventure or anything like that. People fought to protect their country and their people, because they thought that was their duty and their responsibility and felt proud of it. And that's it.
That's a male thing, and even though there's smart women that can understand it, you clearly don't. Media has sold that image that men's life was some kind of 'privileged thrilling adventure', and you have bought it. When men think about adventure, we think about exploration. Jack London is about adventure, 'All Quiet on the Western Front' has as much adventure as my ass.
You wouldn't want to go to war UNLESS you thought you were failing to your country. It's not about 'adventure'. It's about DUTY. And women don't feel that kind of duty. You can't even understand it. share
Wow, angry much? Is it so hard for you to accept that some men wanted to go to war? That "duty" was not the only reason to do it for everybody? But I guess that the truth that some men (and not even all men, but some) went to war for personal reasons, like they believed that that could prove their manliness, goes against your notion that poor men are oppressed.
Of course, it is true that men didn't have much choice if they were drafted. But even so, some men didn't mind going to war. And again, many of them did not see "duty" as the main reason why they joined up. They often did so for a number of different personal reasons, some of which were dumb, like Jolly and Val in "The Forsyte Saga", who managed to dare each other to join up for the Boer War.
Wow, angry much? Is it so hard for you to accept that some men wanted to go to war? That "duty" was not the only reason to do it for everybody? [...] some men went to war for personal reasons, like they believed that that could prove their manliness
The problem is that this is a MYTH created by modern woke feminist narrative.
There's an easy way to check whether what you say is or isn't true. One thing that was studied decades ago was how willing were soldiers to kill. If what you say is true, there would be quite a few men willing to kill to prove their manliness.
Let's check.
Here you have a video about the topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zViyZGmBhvs
It was found that very few men were willing to kill. And the common element among those men was that they felt responsible and obligated to protect. There was actually a very frequent (and surprising) shared element: many of them were older siblings that had to take care of the younger ones before the war.
So, nope. The 'brute male willing to kill' is actually a fake feminist propaganda. Most men, at least in western countries, weren't willing to kill unless they had to do so to protect their ones. share
I have not said that nobody went to war for the reasons, that you have stated. But that is not the case for everybody. Otherwise, how can you explain the two young men in "The Forsyte Saga", who managed to dare each other to enter a war in South Africa, that had nothing whatsoever to do with either of them? And you will most likely say that that is only fiction. But the book was first published in 1920, which is long before any "woke myths" existed. Plus, Galsworthy was only like a decade older than Val and Jolly. So he would have known what guys in that generation were like.
shareIn today’s world I’m not sure a sense of duty is there in the same way. I mean why would you want to run off to war on the say so of today’s politicians who have been proven to lie, claim non existing expenses and feather their own nests at all our expense?
share"You need to read up on history. What Amy states is very true of the time - married women had few legal rights and many did marry for the reasons she states."
It doesn't really matter if it's true or not. If it's not said in the book, especially not by Amy, it should not be in the movie. This rewrite would be part of an agenda.
Very interesting to know just how far back the book of "Gone with the Wind" went..to the 1920s (published in 1936).
shareYou are just digging for stuff to be pissed off about, whether it is there or not. It's the new year. Focus within and better yourself. Stop actively seeking things to be outraged about.
shareHmm..Isn't feminism and Muslim the same (Linda Saarsour).
shareI understood the line about being ashamed of her country referred to the USA's continued slavery laws - something no one could be proud of.
I liked the end changing discussion with the author. It's probably an invention but it may well have been an actual discussion Alcott has and it was just an amusing little shuffle of the story.