Sunday
Dec292019
Podcast: Loving "Little Women"
Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 9:25PM 
In this hour long conversation Nathaniel and Murtada welcome special guest Kim Rogers (no relation to Nathaniel) from Head Over Feels to discuss Greta Gerwig's reworking of the classic oft-adapted Little Women starring Saorsie Ronan. Compare and contrast conversations to the 1994 version can't be helped but our opinions differ here and there on the 2019 film's sucess in various areas. We discuss the ambiguous ending, Eliza Scanlan versus Claire Danes, Florence Pugh playing Amy the whole way through and more. Spoilers, obviously, for this 151 year-old story.
You can listen to the podcast here at the bottom of the post or download from iTunes. Continue the conversations in the comments, won't you?
Reader Comments (10)
Ooh, I definitely disagree about Beth's death. I found that to be one of the most moving scenes in the movie. I was sobbing. The two shots of Jo coming downstairs and seeing/not seeing Beth at the kitchen table just destroyed me, both times and for different reasons. I thought the editing so beautiful.
A lovely listen and I agree with a lot of your thoughts. I personally loved it.
Hoping for Actress, S Actress and Adapted Screenplay, all three are deserved.
I thought the beginning was a bit rocky to get adjusted to the editing but thought it was a great device. The way Beth’s death is told was beautiful. The joy and the sadness lingered throughout the rest of the film. People all around me were sobbing scenes later.
Tracy Letts is the best supporting actor of the year.
I think Beanie Feldstein will surprise in Best Actress - Comedy.
Mary Wickes was the actress who played Aunt March in the 1994 version. Trini Alvarado played Meg in the same film.
As great as Florence Pugh is in the movie, Murtada has a point. She does read older than the other actresses (not to mention, she has a very deep voice), so it's hard to see her as the youngest of these sisters. Part of it may also have to do with the fact that many of us have been watching both Emma Watson and Saoirse Ronan grow up on screen, so it's diffcult for us not to see them as little girls, while Florence Pugh was in her late teen years when she had her breakout, so we see her as older, even though she's 2 years younger than Saoirse and 6 years younger than Emma.
I have mixed feelings about the structure, because even though it is a new way of telling an oft-told story, jumping between time periods means the audience has to re-calibrate every time we go from one to the other, and this film has two hurdles to overcome in that regard. The first is that it happens too often, and the second is that other there isn't really that much on screen that helps us differentiate between one the time periods (this is where having another actress playing the younger Amy would have helped, or maybe even a younger version of any of the other characters). I still really liked it, I think the cast is top notch and I do like the new ending (especially after learning more about Louisa May Alcott), but I think I may need a second viewing before I decide if it's successful or not (it also felt a bit rushed, almost like Greta was so confident that we knew the story that she didn't feel that we needed time to register certain events, and that's a consistent sin for the Disney live action remakes that I'd rather not find in a film by someone I admire as much as Greta).
Sad I wasn't able to join this podcast (due to technical difficulties), but really enjoyed hearing your thoughts and glad the 1994 version lives on in others' hearts besides mine! :)
I too have mixed feelings about the narrative structure, although I did appreciate it as a bold move to shake things up. But put me in the camp that believes it diminished the impact of Beth's death, esp. compared to the 1994 version (like Kim, I always bawl my eyes out during Claire Danes' last scene and the one immediately after). The funny thing is I think Eliza Scanlen is actually better casting for Beth because she has a more naturally shy and fragile demeanor (or maybe I just have her performance in Sharp Objects on the brain). But by the same token her Beth was much less prominent in this version, although I agree with Murtada that that was probably a deliberate choice.
The one thing I think I disagree with you all on is the meta-ness of the ending, which didn't really work for me - but then I have pretty low tolerance for all things meta. And relatedly, for me Gabriel Byrne's Bhaer >>>> Louis Garrel's. Of course this has a lot to do with the fact that the 1994 movie followed a much more conventional romantic structure, but Byrne and Winona really sold their relationship so that you actually bought Bhaer as Jo's soulmate, as opposed to just a cute fictional sop to Alcott's publisher.
i think what gerwig does to the narrative is deconstruction--which, by nature, relies on a knowledge of a story beforehand. you can't deconstruct a narrative that no one knows, you have to start from a common place.
it is possible that the film could get away with far more oscar nominations than the precursors would lead us to believe, if, and that's a big if, it peaks at the right time with box office and hollywood love (there seems to be a lot of potential for each). i think that it could take off late and get noms for screenplay, actress, supp, costume, art direction, score, and cinematography. if they go really nuts for it (phantom thread style) it could get into director and picture, too.
however, it's just as likely that it only gets screenplay.
Murtada: just saw Uncut Gems and I absolutely ADORED it. It is my second favorite film of the year, just behind Parasite. And Sandler, wow.