MovieChat Forums > ejbronte
ejbronte (60)
Posts
Replies
Thanks for your comments - I'm going to agree with most of them, specifically about how the 1933 version should have worked, with Kate Hepburn theoretically a perfect fit for Jo. I do think that, in the first section, she is very, very good and "jo"-like. My feeling is that it's the script which lets her down once Beth is ill and Jo goes to NY. We tend to lose the core of Jo's nature in key places, I feel; Hepburn does her best, and there are lovely scenes, like the one where she confesses her loneliness to Meg, but the script and direction allow sentiment to take over a little too often. However. For me, Spring Byington is the "best" Marmee, and as Aunt March, I will take Edna May Oliver any way I can enjoy watching her.
June Allyson has that nice rough-and-tumble aspect to her, and, like Hepburn, isn't afraid to run around in those skirts. O'Brien is a lovey Beth, and it's rather sweet to have the two Hollywood "town cryers" sharing a scene. But I don't like the casting of Elizabeth Taylor as Amy and/or feel she wasn't directed well. And I understand that if you have O'Brien as Beth, Taylor can't be the youngest sister and so the script switches birth order. But I still don't like it.
I've only seen the 1994 version once, and should watch it again. I remember feeling that, much as I like Ryder generally, she comes off a little too "dainty" for Jo.
For me the 2019 version had some interesting ideas, and Ronan has that same rough on the edges feeling that I think Jo ought to have. Ultimately, for me, there was sensation of distance from the material and the story in this version, which left me unsatisfied. Though the structure didn't confuse me, it may have contributed to that sensation. Perhaps, like the end, though it made me smile and enjoy the twist, there was a sort of too-much-cleverness within it. "Little Women" isn't a "clever" work. It's a look at four sisters, and how growing up together, and apart, affects their lives and development.
Late reply, but:
Addison knows pretty much everything: he would have begun digging immediately after his dressing room conversation with Eve, when he asks about the Shubert Theater in San Francisco. He actually gives Eve a subtle warning in the Cub Room scene, when he lightly comments: "Sometimes I think you keep things from me," and finishing by warning her that he hopes she means it when she says she depends on him, because he intends to hold her to it. In the hotel scene he fires at Eve that he had a meeting with Karen just (an hour ago?), and that "like all women, she revealed more than she learned." I would say that Addison never goes into a battle unarmed.
He knows what a potent, double-edged sword his article on Eve is too, as he intones, giving Karen the newspaper someone else was reading: "Here. Read my article. The minutes will fly like hours." Oblivious to the subtle (oh, that Addison!) warning, Karen smiles brightly as she accepts the bomb about to go off and reunite Margo and Bill.
But Margo suspected nothing until the midnight phone call. Even then, she had that conversation with Birdie, to be sure she wasn't being paranoid. It wasn't until the further scene with Eve and the silent exchange between Margo and Birdie that Margo became actively suspicious of Eve. More than that, there was jealousy/envy involved because Eve has all the advantages: she's young, she's intelligent, she's gentle, she's eager to be of help (though the reasons aren't what the target realizes), she knows how to make herself attractive to those around her. So Margo is also feeling defenseless. And, because of how Eve presents herself, there's nothing Margo can say to make herself sound justified. So there are many, many reasons for Margo to find herself behaving the way she does.
This makes me think of a line from another wonderful P&P movie, "Stairway to Heaven", where Marius Goring (Julian in "Red Shoes"), playing a completely different character, sighs at one point: "Ah, one is starved for Technicolor up there." ("Stairway to Heaven" was my intro to Marius Goring and to P&P, and I just adored Goring in it. When I saw "Red Shoes" for the first time, it took me a while to reconcile myself to the fact that Goring was Julian).
Remember the time frame of this movie: we start in about 1964/65; Cole is born around 1965/66. Here's a table of when, in the US, hearing tests on infants began to be standard practice: https://www.infanthearing.org/legislative/summary.html. In the 1960s, this wasn't normal practice. So I cut them some major slack here.
With due respect, the high school bands in our area were very good; however: I add that we grew up in a large city, in about the same time period as the start of this movie (I'm old...!), and that, during this time, in my area, all the arts enjoyed a lot of concentration. So for all of us, our mileage may vary.
Yep, it's short, but again, I cut slack, since, really, do we want to sit through 20 minutes of music when the story is basically over? In head canon, perhaps they excerpted the most complete section of the work.
I politely disagree (forgive misspellings, I can't spellcheck right now):
We witness the effect of Luke's death on all the major players, and can gauge character status and development from their emotional and their political responses.
We see at least two sides of Aegon's character: foolish inattention at the Small Council; attempts at charity in the throne room; back to silliness and inattention.
We see the various emotional, faith related and political knots begin major ensnaring for Aliceinte.
Cracks are already beginning to form within coalitions on both sides.
This is the start of wind-up. Personally I am willing to patiently wait to see to what pitch it winds before it spins out of control.
Ages ago I read a New Yorker article about how hard it was for clothing franchises to get started in NYC as opposed to other locations. One spokesperson observed that, while, in other cities, colors were the norm, here in NYC, "it's black, black, and more black." I'm a native New Yorker (by way of Brooklyn) and I can vouch for that!
It's up to both of them to act like intelligent people.
As far as this specific situation goes, she explains that he came onto her twice; she refused twice. In retaliation, he ignored her and her work, which would have been detrimental to her career:
Because he would not be advancing her culinary education with his attention and advice.
Because it might incite the others to treat her badly too, and isolate her within the team.
Because if she quit in response to this treatment, he might take it upon himself to write a negative review to a future employer, thus further damaging her future.
Because there is a general understanding about relationships in the workplace, which this incident violated.
Plus: no way should you get rid of Edward G. Robinson before you absolutely have to.
George ruined it: you're not supposed to tell your wish or it won't come true: he told Mary every bit of his wish. Mary, on the other hand, reminded him that telling would cause the wish not to come true. She kept silent, he was expansive.
So, well....
View all replies >