Little Women (2017) Mini Series Review

It's always when I'm the most busy that I have the most ideas for posts. I have had a weekend at home (yay! traveling for conferences is fun but east, west, home's best) but plenty of stuff to fill it with. So this shall be a very brief review of the new BBC Little Women (variously dated as 2017 or 2018). Apologies in advance for the picture overload.

Casting

To be honest, I didn't think any of the sisters were amazing actresses.  Amy was the worst — she seemed an annoying brat throughout the whole movie, rather than merely a slightly vain silly little girl who grows up into a young lady with a liking for elegance.

For instance, when she burns Jo's manuscript she has neither fear nor regret; instead she says brazenly "I said I'd make you pay." Now, I'm definitely biased in favor of the 1994 version (because I grew up with it, adore the music, and etc), but I think it portrayed this scene muuuch better. Amy denies having been the one to do the deed, is afraid of Jo's rage and also seems regretful, if not penitent. Jo's anger is also more realistically portrayed.

Super jealous of Beth and Jo's freckles.

Jo, Beth, and Meg had good moments and bad moments. For instance, Beth was pretty good in general, but during her scene of telling Jo she was dying (sorry, spoiler) she didn't seem to have any emotion whatsoever. Yes, she has been processing and experiencing her own decline for months, but still. One might expect a tear leaking out, a trembling lip, or at least a faltering voice...? Nope. She might have been informing Jo that she'd decided against purchasing a new hat.

I liked Meg in general, but in the "Aunt March abuses Rook" scene, she didn't seem all that believable. Buuut I got teared up in the ensuing minutes when the said Rook — er, Brooke — departs to serve in the war and the sisters are singing "Land of the Leale," so she can't have been too bad. :P

Jo also improved over the course of the three episodes. I think part of the reason her acting felt unnatural was the dialogue. Normally I'm a big fan of quoting directly from the book, but in the context of this movie (which had a generally modern rather than period drama feel, in my opinion), the old-fashioned phrases felt stilted and awkward.

Of course Marmee and Aunt March — Emily Watson and Angela Lansbury, respectively, were amazing. Father was fine. I'd like to dislike Mr. Laurence on principle (he's played by Michael Gambon) but he was fine as well.

Mr. Bhaer was much better than the 1994 actor. He seemed younger and livelier, and it seems less confusing that Jo would be attracted to him.

We cannot forget Laurie, of course. He was simply adorable - his dimple! — and fun.

Script

This leads me to the dialogue. In many parts they quoted directly from the book, but either the context or delivery made it feel very awkward. The miniseries felt both more old-fashioned and more contemporary than the 1994 version.

However, with the additional hour they were able to include Camp Laurence, Beth and Jo's trip to the seaside, more snapshots of Meg's family life, and a brief "epilogue" type scene at Plumfield.

In summary, more accurate to the book, but in some ways not as well delivered as the 1994 version.

Sound

Part of old-modern disconnect was from the soundtrack. It utilized a banjo and violin which occasionally sounded like authentic late 18th c. old West music but more often did not fit the mood of the scene at all. At some points where the mood was supposed to be uplifting, it was very dramatic/somber. At other points it was so bouncy and modern it felt like I was watching a Youtube tutorial for DIY wrapping paper.

AH! This scene!

This may be because I love the 1994 (sorry, I can't help comparing) soundtrack so much. I think it captures the themes of Little Women — the passing of time, growing up, sorrows and joys, family life — so well.

Visuals

The costumes and hair were in general very visually appealing. I'm not an 1860s expert by any means, but there seemed to be a lot more loose hair on Jo's part than would be acceptable.

Jo and Meg had several simple, but pretty, costumes that I would definitely wear in real life if it was socially acceptable. Haha.

I quite like Meg and Marmee's dresses here (incidentally I wore a dress very similar to Meg's when I played Jo in a play.)

The wedding clothes were the best. The garlands!

Only complaint was that Jo had a few really homely hats. I could only find a screen capture of one, but as you can see, it is simply strange. (Nice scene though. I loved that Jo couldn't stop smiling.)

In summary, I'd probably give it a 4 out of 5. The soundtrack was definitely a huge drawback, and the acting at some times felt awkward with the dialogue, but in general it was believable, beautiful, and fun.

Well, readers? Have you seen any Little Women adaptions? Do you support Jo/Bhaer and Laurie/Amy, or are you holding out for Jo and Laurie yet? Would you wear any 1860s ensembles?

Awdur

"My idea of good company is... clever, well-informed people, who have a great deal of conversation"

"You are mistaken," said he gently, "that is not good company; that is the best."

- Chapter 16 of Persuasion, by Jane Austen

Ahhh.... One week ago today I departed from my house to go to the Jane Austen Society's Annual General Meeting. Readers, it was completely delightful. (Minus the parts where I locked my keys in the car, got kissed on the forehead by a complete stranger, and lost the pictures of my ball attire. But those were negligible.)

During the day, probably 10-20% of the ladies* were dressed in some form of Regency garb. Even though this put me in the minority, as it was completely acceptable to be wearing a full-length gown, I felt elegant rather than uncomfortable. It was especially fun, when outside the hotel conference rooms and wandering around buying food, to see women in gowns and spencers (with normal shoppers carefully not looking at them). I loved seeing all the variety in colors, fabrics, hats, turbans, and hair styles. Everyone looked so lovely.

The bandeau kept wanting to slip off my head, but a few pins did the trick.

I attended the three large lectures as well as four small seminars. One large lecture concerned the economy in 1814-1816. We learned about the economic crash that followed the Battle of Waterloo, during which Jane wrote Persuasion, as well as the financial failures of Jane's banking brothers. I found all of this quite interesting as it was all new information for me. The speaker also explained why Mr. Elliot *spoiler* refrains from assisting Mrs. Smith. As a lawyer and executer of her will, he was actually receiving a retainer's fee. Additionally, he owed Mr. Smith money. So if he were to settle her property, he would lose a source of income and have to repay his debts. *end spoiler*

Another of the large lectures was on "Self-delusion in Persuasion," given by a very witty British professor ("We all know the purpose of an umbrella, of course — to hold over a lady."). He pointed out that the word "self-delusion" is only used in Persuasion, but that all of Jane's novels deal with the topic. Persuasion has the least dialogue percentage of all six novels; rather, the book is full of listening and internalising. Even the narration of events is usually Anne's supposition rather than an objective narrator, and we cannot accept that Anne is unbiased. For instance, when Jane Austen writes, "Anne understood: ..." we should read "Anne persuaded herself that..." (Such as when Anne tells herself she is happy to know without doubt that Captain Wentworth no longer cares for her, as she will no longer have to wonder. Snort.)

My favourite seminar was called "Louisa Musgrove and Captain Benwick: Shipwreck or Love Boat?" The speaker started by playing a Persuasion trailer, made with the Love Boat theme (it's fun to be with adults vs. college students because we share more cultural references, haha). She presented opposing views on whether or not Louisa and Benwick would make a successful match. Have they truly grown alike? Or is Louisa only beginning to recover (and will soon realize that her liveliness is unsuited to him) and Benwick an "emotional parasite" who will attach himself to anyone willing to listen to him? 

The end of the seminar was spent in discussion. I have always been skeptical of their match, though not against second attachments in general. Though Jane might censure the speed in which he forgot Fanny Harville, she clearly would not have advocated for the kind of emotional wallowing to which Benwick (and Marianne Dashwood) is prone. In time, it is more healthy to move on from a loss than to hold onto it forever. Additionally, one attendee made a point which completely changed my view on Louisa and Benwick: though their love seems completely circumstantial, a great portion of the novel is about circumstances happening in a particular way. Even about Anne and Captain Wentworth it is said that, "Half the sum of attraction, on either side, might have been enough, for he had nothing to do, and she had hardly anybody to love." Described this way, the two couples are actually not that different.

I basically never take selfies so when I do I end up looking uncomfortable/mad.**

Of course the conversation was excellent. There was a spectrum of familiarity with Jane and the Regency era, from twenty-year Janeites to those who had only been recently introduced. I suppose I was a little intimidated by attending the AGM and was expecting everyone would be highbrow scholars who sewed their own [100% period accurate] clothing, so it was nice to realize there weren't any high expectations and it was just fun. 

It was delightful to be able to take up with a stranger and find he or she was a kindred spirit, and not have to explain references to books, quotes, etc. Or when in the lectures the speaker would reference another classic, like Dickens, and everybody nodded and laughed at the right places. Or telling someone I'm a charwoman for an office and not having to define that occupation. I don't like that this analogy sounds like I'm a pathetic friendless soul, but I would say I it was like living all your life in a foreign country and then finding a place where they speak your language. (This is no reflection on people who do not enjoy or read Dickens, Austen, etc. 19th c. reading may not be for everyone, but I adore it, and I've never been in company with people who agree.)

The Emporium was great fun and I consider myself to have been very self-disciplined to have only bought one $4 book that was on my list anyway, a pack of stationery (I'm always going through that), and taken a business card from another shop. (I also bought a little thing of Welsh cakes, but that was because I'd forgotten to bring a snack, so it doesn't really count. Shush.) Though that was all I bought, I found myself coming back between every session to roam among the books — and there, entered into multiple conversations, including an exchange with a girl originally from Kansas City, whose parents [I realized] I have danced with at multiple dances but never met. In a group of nine hundred people it was quite a coincidence. In addition to many books by and about Jane Austen, one could purchase British food, Regency attire, antique jewelry, tea towels from Jane Austen's House Museum, even a Japanese translation of Pride and Prejudice.

The period concert opera was gorgeous. I was really tired and sort of wanted to sleep towards the end, but then a lady started singing Italian opera and it was absolutely beautiful.

And of course, the ball and banquet were the highlight of the weekend —  I've never in so large a company of dancers, let alone a group that is 90% costumed and competent dancers. I sat with my chapter for the banquet, so I got to meet more members whom I've never seen before.

All in all, it was a delightful weekend, and I think Anne Elliot would agree we were in very good company.

Well, readers, would you attend the AGM? Do you think Louisa and Benwick will be a happy couple? 

Your Servant,

*I refer only to "ladies" because of the 900 people attending the conference, the majority of course were women over 40 (one of the men's rooms was re-labeled "women's" in intelligent anticipation of this ratio!). There were younger ladies and some gentlemen, however.
** Also decided there's no real reason not to post face-revealing pictures on this blog. So there you go.