#John Alcott

[filmy420]

A Clockwork Orange (1971)

[bigspoopygurl]

The Shining (1980)

"Here's Johnny!"

Director: Stanley Kubrick Cinematographer: John Alcott

[manicpixievideovixen]

Great films to watch for Cinematography No. 4

[amythedemisimp]

Bungou Stray Dogs Wan!

Chapter 161 (English translation)

Translation, cleaning, type-setting by: @amythedemisimp (me)

Chapter illustrated by: KanaiNeco

Raws: here

Sorry if it looks a bit rushed, I did this quickly because I wanted to translate it and show it to everyone as soon as possible -- Fyodor is finally appearing in a Wan chapter as one of the main characters!!! I'm so happy!!!

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Writing Prompt: More Last Lines

Choose one of the last lines of these literary works, and either create a new story/poem or continue writing the story...

“I lingered round them, under that benign sky; watched the moths fluttering among the heath, and hare-bells; listened to the soft wind breathing through the grass; and wondered how any one could ever imagine unquiet slumbers for the sleepers in that quiet earth.” —Emily Brontë, Wuthering Heights (1847)

“For the first time they had done something out of Love.” —Patrick Süskind, Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (1985)

“Oh, my girls, however long you may live, I never can wish you a greater happiness than this.” —Louisa May Alcott, Little Women (1868)

“‘Darling,’ replied Valentine, ‘has not the count just told us that all human wisdom is summed up in two words?—‘Wait and hope.'” —Alexandre Dumas, The Count of Monte Cristo (1846)

“Later on he will understand how some men so loved her, that they did dare much for her sake.” —Bram Stoker, Dracula (1897)

“And now that you don’t have to be perfect, you can be good.” —John Steinbeck, East of Eden (1952)

“I just waited a bit, then turned back to the car, to drive off to wherever it was I was supposed to be.” —Kazuo Ishiguro, Never Let Me Go (2005)

“The strains of the piano and violin rose up weakly from below.” —Milan Kundera, The Unbearable Lightness of Being (1984)

“For all to be accomplished, for me to feel less lonely, all that remained to hope was that on the day of my execution there should be a huge crowd of spectators and that they should greet me with howls of execration.” —Albert Camus, The Stranger (1942)

“The knife came down, missing him by inches, and he took off.” —Joseph Heller, Catch-22 (1961)

If this writing prompt inspires you in any way, please tag me, or leave a link in the replies. I would love to read your work!

last lines pt. 1 ⚜ the first lines More: Writing Prompts

[tsvitmar]

All guild members in my style (⁠◡⁠ ⁠ω⁠ ⁠◡⁠)

[whenthegoldrays]

So I’m not sure if it was Greta Gerwig herself or a movie reviewer but I once read a criticism of the men in Little Women, saying that the March women’s husbands are all varying degrees of useless or disrespectful. Saying that John belittles Meg and her housework and that Friedrich has no respect for Jo’s work. And I have to say… what??

Meg and John are a great example of a healthy couple. Yes, he laughs when her jelly doesn’t turn out, but is he belittling her? No! He just finds it amusing because it is, at least to an observer. And he gets miffed that the house isn’t in order, but in fairness, she did say he could bring a friend whenever and dinner would be ready. They go through rough patches, but they always talk it out and keep on pulling as a team.

And the big one that everyone is mad about, Friedrich criticizing Jo’s writing. I think these people didn’t read the book because Fritz never reads Jo’s sensational stories. He finds a story in a newspaper — specifically stated to not be one of hers — and broadly criticizes that kind of story. This isn’t directed at Jo, it’s directed at writers of these stories in general (again, Friedrich doesn’t know Jo is one of them). But Jo takes his words to heart because he’s spoken to her conscience, and then she makes the decision to burn them all up and quit writing that genre of story. She listens to him because she knows him to have a strong moral compass, which is a big part of why she likes him so much. He helps her grow and become a better person and writer without having to give her direct advice!! And that’s beautiful!! And I’m sick of people who wanted Jo to stay single taking their disappointment and turning it into “all the husbands in Little Women were bad husbands and the second half is a commentary on how terrible it is to be married.” No. Stop it. Read the book. Cut it out with the cynicism.

[merriclo]

i love BSD’s portrayal of Americans because it really is just the human embodiment of capitalism, guy with a gun, old fisherman, gay guy and his raccoon, eldritch horror, a farmer, freakishly religious guy and his mean southern lady best friend, a deranged orphan, and a shy woman. truly a perfect representation of America

[nerdyrevelries]

I have very strong opinions on what type of social media users all of the characters in Little Women would be.

Marmee runs the Facebook page for her neighborhood. You know, the one where people can post about lost pets, barbeques, and give people heads up that there's going to be some reno going on on their house.

Meg is the biggest social media user of the bunch. Prior to marriage, she has a Pinterest board full of fantasies for her someday wedding and she follows multiple cottagecore influencers. After she becomes a mother, Meg gets really into mommy bloggers to the point where her family has to have an intervention because she's wearing herself out trying to make baby food from scratch because she's been convinced it's the only way to make sure her kids grow up with every advantage. She will also cry over Marie Kondo videos on YouTube because she can't manage to have a perfect, uncluttered life with two active toddlers. She is unfortunately very susceptible to seeing the perfect life other people present on social media and assuming that the projected image is an achievable reality and she is failing when she doesn't measure up to it. Luckily, John is very kind and understanding and helpful about this. (He's not much of a social media user at all.)

Jo has a Substack for her writing and a Tumblr where she posts and talks about writing and follows other people who talk about writing.

Beth is a social media enigma. She has a Pinterest where she only has private boards for saving music, and she lurks but does not have an account on a forum for musicians. She otherwise has no social media presence.

Amy doesn't post a ton on her social media. She has an Instagram where she occasionally posts photos of her art or a pretty flower she saw that day. However, she is constantly getting tagged in other people's social media posts as she frequently shows up in pictures on other people's social media. She's very much of the opinion that she wants to be out there living life rather than just posting about it.

I regret to inform you that Laurie has a pranks channel on YouTube and TikTok. He eventually does stop running it after his character growth, at which point he switches to using his social media platform to highlight aspiring artists and musicians and provide philanthropy and outreach.

Professor Bhaer has a presence in academic publications. Outside of that, he enjoys writing reviews of obscure public domain media on the Internet Archive.

[youareinlove]

was chatting w/ a mutual abt this yesterday, so i was wondering: what's your guys's taylor song that reminds you of a really specific time in your life? we all have one.

[morningdawnbreaks]

Illustrations of Little Women

By Louisa May Alcott

[filmy420]

[spookyavenuestreet]

the guild is unironically one of my favorite organizations in bsd (*･ω･*) they were so interesting and i miss them so much (´TωT`) literally jump with joy whenever any of the members get mentioned in the manga or wan (´・∀・)

[emomarktwain]

I needed to share my thoughts

If you have any questions... No you don't

[syunkiss]

getting out of the closet in the guild groupchat 👍

GC: capitalism vs society of smart people

poe: I have something to say.

poe: Hi everyone, I'm gay.

mark: IT WAS ABOUT TIME ???? LOL

nathaniel: You're going to hell [insert praying gif]

margaret: It's amazing to know you trust us enough for that, Edgar. I am proud of you. Know we will not see you in a different way for that.

mark: 🥳🥳🥳

francis: Do I need to increase your pay for being a victim of society or smth?

lovecraft: what is gay ?

margaret: Simple, Lovecraft. A gay person is someone who is attracted to the same gender as theirs.

lovecraft: what if I don't have one

mark: the non-gender ever

louisa: uhm.. can I say something too ? i am a lesbian

nathaniel: 🙏🙏🙏oh my Lord oh for God's sake not you too

margaret: It's okay, Louisa. Ignore him. We are also happy you trust us enough for that.

steinbeck: hi I just got my phone now sorry I was in the bathroom

steinbeck: I thought you two were American?

[princesssarisa]

Some “Little Women” thoughts – In defense of Meg’s marriage

@littlewomenpodcast, @thatscarletflycatcher, @joandfriedrich

Whether Little Women is a feminist book or an anti-feminist book will probably be debated forever.

Most of the debate seems to center around the character of Jo: whether she’s depressingly “tamed” in the end or matures in a healthy way, whether her marriage is anti-feminist or not, and whether or not it’s “anti-feminist” that in the end she’s a schoolmistress instead of a famous author. (Though of course she’ll eventually be a famous author in Jo’s Boys.) But similar debate surrounds the other March sisters too, for various reasons.

Not even Meg, the sister whom readers most often seem to overlook, is spared from these debates. Many feminist critics, such as (but not limited to) Samantha Ellis in her book How to Be a Heroine, have criticized the chapters depicting Meg and John Brooke’s married life in Part II. They label those chapters “depressing,” and they feel as if Meg and John are constantly at odds with each other and miserable. They argue that each of their marital conflicts ends with Meg learning to be a more submissive wife who placates and effaces herself for her husband. And they despise John, labeling him “selfish” and “disrespectful.”

Sometimes I wonder if I read the same book that they did.

It seems obvious to me that Meg and John’s marriage is a happy and healthy one: Alcott is just honest about the fact that even the happiest marriage includes conflict and requires work. Some of these critics seem to think fictional marriages only exist in two forms, “perfect” and “toxic,” with no in-betweens. Nor does John deserve half the negative commentary he gets, nor does Meg’s personal growth within her marriage consist of learning to be a submissive or self-effacing wife. On the contrary, much of her growth consists of her learning that she doesn’t need to be a “perfect” housewife and mother who gives and demands too much of herself, and their marriage becomes more of an equal partnership by the end, not less of one.

Let’s look in depth all three of Meg and John’s marital conflicts.

First there’s the jelly incident.

Here we see the first of a recurring theme: Meg is determined to be the perfect housewife and is "over-anxious to please.” She wants to do everything right and do it all by herself, because she’s afraid that otherwise, she'll be a failure. In terms of her personality type, I agree with @funkymbtifiction that Meg is an ESFJ. In the book, if not in all adaptations, Meg and Amy are both ESFJs: Amy is more of the sparkling “Glinda in Wicked” variety, while Meg, apart from her streak of vanity, is more of the down-to-earth, motherly, “Mrs. Potts in Beauty and the Beast” variety. But Meg in particular shows what @alittlebitofpersonality calls the ESFJ Type Angst. Her eagerness to manage her marriage and motherhood in the most pleasant, correct way (her strong Fe and Si) and her fear of possible failure (her weak Ne and Ti) give her, in A Little Bit of Personality’s words, a “frantic desire to do everything and get it done right now,” so she drives herself too hard.

She shouldn’t have promised John that he could bring home a dinner guest at any time; that’s unrealistic. Nor should she have tried to make jelly for the first time in her life using only the memory of watching Hannah make it; she should have invited Hannah over to help her. Nor should she have become so absorbed in making and re-making the jelly that she didn’t cook dinner; nor should she have let herself be so distraught about the failed jelly, or lost her temper with John and then run to her room, leaving him to improvise a bread-and-cheese dinner and entertain Mr. Scott alone.

John is also at fault and acknowledges it. He shouldn’t have forgotten that Meg was making jelly that day and brought home a guest without warning. He shouldn’t have laughed at Meg’s anguish over the failed jelly, nor should he have joked that he and Mr. Scott “won’t ask for jelly” with dinner. But let’s be fair to John. His laughter is probably just as much out of relief as out of amusement, because when he first comes home and finds Meg sobbing, he worries that something terrible has happened. Then, when he realizes no food has been cooked, he’s understandably annoyed because he’s come home from work tired and hungry, with a guest too, and Meg hasn’t done what she promised she would. But he doesn’t lose his temper; he stays calm and amiable and accepts a cold-cut meal; he just gives his annoyance a tiny vent with his joking barb about the jelly. Then Meg overreacts in response.

In the hours afterwards, he and Meg are still polite to each other, just a bit distant, each sorry but waiting for the other to apologize first. Then, when Meg finally breaks the ice, they both apologize (not just Meg – in fact only John verbally apologizes, Meg just does it with a kiss), everything is fine again, and from then on they both laugh about the incident.

Maybe by modern standards, it is problematic that Marmee has urged Meg to be careful not to make John angry and to always apologize first when they’re both at fault. But it’s not because John has “a volcanic temper,” as Samantha Ellis inexplicably claimed– he so clearly doesn’t! Nor is Marmee’s message “Men are less forgiving than women so we need to placate them.” She’s not talking about “men,” but about John the individual, and she’s not urging Meg to placate him either. All she means is that John’s anger doesn’t flare up and die quickly like the March women’s, but simmers much longer because he represses it.

Then there’s the silk incident.

Say what you will about vanity-shaming and other gendered implications (which of course are valid), but Meg didn’t need an expensive silk dress, and she shouldn’t have ordered it without telling John. It’s not that a wife should ask her husband’s permission to spend money; it’s that no one, regardless of gender, should do anything behind their spouse’s back that they’re ashamed to admit. And again, John doesn’t get angry. He accepts the expense without complaining. He’s just hurt; he works so hard to provide for Meg, and the fact that what he provides isn’t good enough for her, that she says “I’m tired of being poor,” makes him feel inadequate. Yet he tries not to show his hurt and is willing to let Meg have the dress. He cancels his own order for a new overcoat so they can afford it; he’s willing to sacrifice something he needs for something Meg wants but doesn’t need. When Meg sells the silk and buys the overcoat for John instead, she’s only repaying his selflessness in kind.

Finally, we reach the chapter “On the Shelf.”

I’ve read several feminist articles that criticize this chapter and especially John’s behavior in it. But I don’t agree with any of them. John isn’t being selfish the way Meg briefly thinks he is; he’s not jealous of her attention to the twins. By all appearances, Meg genuinely neglects him and overwhelms herself too, because she devotes every waking moment to her two toddlers and thinks no one can properly take care of them but herself. Again she’s trying to be superhuman because she’s afraid of failure. She doesn’t let John be a parent to his own children, or take any time to relax either, and she spoils the twins and makes things harder for herself by giving in to their tantrums. I understand why some feminists are rankled when John starts spending his evenings elsewhere, Meg feels ignored, and Marmee tells her it’s her own fault for forgetting ‘her duty to her husband.” But even if that wording isn’t ideal by modern standards, it's arguably true. To blame John for “not bothering” to help take care of the twins and “forcing” Meg to do it all alone, as some of these critics do, is just the opposite of what the chapter means to convey.

And again, John doesn’t get angry or complain. Nor, unlike what some of these critics seem to think, does he cheat on Meg, either physically or emotionally. He just goes to visit the Scotts rather than feel lonely and useless at home (where Samantha Ellis got the idea that he goes to “what sounds like a dodgy establishment” is beyond me; it’s a friend’s house), and just because Meg worries that his eye is roving to pretty Mrs. Scott doesn’t mean it is.

Arguably, this chapter has a very feminist message about egalitarian marriage and co-parenting. Instead of doing all the work alone and sacrificing her own wellbeing, Meg learns to share her parenting duties with John, and to let Hannah babysit often so they can have much-needed time to themselves too. She also starts to converse with John about politics, so he doesn’t constantly feel the need to seek out a male friend to discuss them, and he returns the favor by conversing with her about domestic subjects too. Traditional gender divides are relaxed. By the end of the chapter, their marriage is more balanced and equal than ever.

I’ve also read complaints about John’s co-parenting. The fact that Meg is portrayed as too soft-hearted, spoiling rowdy Demi and needing John to discipline him. The fact that John and therefore Alcott advocates the potentially traumatic “cry it out” method of sleep training. The fact that John insists on handling Demi’s tantrum in his own way despite Meg’s objections and Meg reluctantly gives in, with references to John’s “masterful tone” and Meg’s “docility.” The possible sexist implication that John knows how to parent better than Meg does.

But I don’t think Alcott meant to imply that John is a better parent than Meg or meant us to see him as lording over her. Even though he won’t let her give in to Demi’s demands, what finally stops Demi’s tantrum is a kiss from Meg after he’s been allowed to cry for a few minutes. They solve the problem together by combining John’s discipline with Meg’s tenderness. Then John shows tenderness of his own by lying down on the bed and holding Demi as he falls asleep, so it’s not a straightforward “cry it out” that he (or Alcott) advocates for sleep training, but something closer to the Ferber Method.

Of course there is an old-fashioned, traditional aura to Meg and John’s marriage and to their roles in the house: Meg as homemaker and John as breadwinner, Meg as nurturer and John as disciplinarian to the twins, and her fondness for sitting in his lap. But of the four March sisters, Meg was always the most traditional young woman of her era. Her marriage dynamic might not be what Jo or even Amy would want, but it’s just right for Meg. And Alcott shows us that with the right effort, even a basically traditional marriage can be egalitarian and mutually healthy.

The one feminist complaint I might sympathize with is that all three of these episodes do revolve around Meg learning to be a better wife. In each instance, Meg is portrayed as being more at fault than John, and she’s the one who learns the chief lesson. But I don’t consider this a sexist choice either. The March sisters are the protagonists of Little Women. Their coming-of-age journeys and personal growth are the focal point. John is a supporting character, so it’s arguably only natural that the “married life” chapters focus more on Meg’s personal growth than on his.

These are the reasons why I personally enjoy the chapters revolving around Meg and John’s marriage, and why I don’t consider them problematic or “depressing.” They’re just a realistic portrayal of the struggles, mistakes, and conflicts that occasionally rise within a happy marriage, which are resolved in a healthy way when both partners put in the necessary work. I understand where the critics who dislike those chapters are coming from, but I can’t bring myself to agree.