#platonic romance: he's no boy he's laurie!

[lilacerull0]

🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡

[daenerysjm]

"the LOVE in a friendship between women is one of the purest types of LOVE".

I want to talk about it...

I think that one of the most beautiful things in movies, shows and books is when they represent female friendships well, in fact relationships between women are the purest, in my opinion, I'm talking mainly about any type of non-romantic relationship: mother and daughter, sisters, friends etc.

when there are no romantic ulterior intentions or sexual interests, it's just something so pure.

in a friendship between a girl and a boy, no matter how beautiful and long the friendship is, it's hard to never have had a sexual estrangement, especially on the part of the boy, honestly I've never been someone who trusted men a lot, I've always had many male friends, really close male friends, so I had some bad experiences, two friends of mine harassed me, and the ones who didn't... had sexual intentions with me, sometimes even romantic, I didn't realize at the time but now I realize that even if they didn't show it if I gave them any opportunity to kiss me, they would, there are exceptions of course, but it's hard.

WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT: I'm serious about that, there are stereotypes yes but I believe that the nature of a woman's soul is different, either because of the natural sensitivity we have or because women are more intuitive, we are different.

the patriarchal society we live in also influences that, men are taught from an early age to be what is expected of a man, brutality, the idea that they can do anything, consent doesn't matter, the idea of ​​having a dependent women. while none of this is expected to us, women, we are often expected to do the quite opposite, but I think that women have a freer spirit, we're more empathetic and so many things in history indicate this, such as the union of gays with women when the LGBTQ+ movements started, even though they were white and straight women, gays have always felt more secure with women, children also feel more secure with women, animals tend to trust more thinner voices so it's easier to them to trust women and children, cats are always more suspicious, they don't trust easily, and they began to approach humans through women, while men had more dogs because they needed dogs for hunting, cats became closer to women, they felt more safe with women, we're different.

A TOPIC: sexualization of female friendships.

It's so obvious that for our society "friendship" isn't enough, mainly when a woman and a man are friends, even if the man has romantic intentions with the woman it doesn't mean that something will happen, and it certainly doesn't mean that the woman feels the same, and often it can be that neither of them feels, the love of friendship is enough, an example is as in "little women" many are disappointed that jo march and laurie didn't end up together, many don't understand why jo march doesn't feel the same way about him, and many stay the whole movie waiting for them to became a couple, and sincerely their friendship alone is so much more beautiful, and enough, the love they had as friends is enough, laurie misunderstood this love but at some point he accepted that as a platonic love, as a beautiful friendship love.

people often treat friendship as a preliminary, as if it needs a continuation and that continuation is a romance, but no, friendship is the beginning, the middle and the end, it's something unique, the love between friends is something isolated and different from romantic love, and it can be as intense as romantic love, of course a friendship love can turn into a romantic love, and a romantic love can turn into a friendship love, but it's not the same thing.

the proof that society really sees everything this way is the amount of shipp people create between friends, the amount of romantic headcanons they create for characters who are friends, there always has to be a theory behind it, a romantic love in the background, or anything like that, when most of the time it's just friendship, and that's not a small thing, that's not less beautiful, that's enough, a friendship love alone is beautiful.

shipps like byler, elmax, ronance and even if we talk about the third season of stranger things, everyone shipped steve and nancy, until the moment she said she is a lesbian, until that moment everyone expected something romantic because for people friendship is always a preliminary, and only now, knowing that robin is lesbian and well.. steve is a man, that people have stopped shipping them, and started appreciating their beautiful friendship and the love they have for each other, I'm sure that if she hadn't said she's a lesbian, if she had just said she doesn't like steve that way, and then steve move on from that and they keep being best friends, people would have continued shipping, would have continued expecting them to became romantic.

they do that with byler and elmax, but focusing on elmax, because they're women.

OBS: I am a sapphic woman.

sapphic women have been exaggerating more and more in making everything romantic, any friendship between women people make headcanon about being romantic, start shipping, start talking about their "passion" and do headcanons about the characters being sapphic, sometimes lesbians, even if the characters in question have men love interests and have never shown any love for women, other that the love of friendship, and friendship love for a woman is something much freer amd sweet than it is for men.

a caring and sweet relationship is not expected in a friendship between men, especially in western society, and usually when men who are friends are more attentive to each other people start to shipp, and then they distance themselves from each other because society is culturally sexist, so it's not expect straight men to "act" like gay men, and honestly anything outside the standard "alpha male" is already labeled by many men as "gay" or "beta" lmao it's pathetic but that's the true, and sincerely by shipping any caring and sweet male friendship you're just perpetuating that.

by the way, it's not the same with female friendships, it's normal for us to be sweet with eachother, sleep in the same bed, holding hands, hugging, praising each other, even declaring, talking about how much the friendship matters, talking about deep things, combing each other's hair, even taking a shower together, I don't know in the USA but I'm brazilian and this has always been normal between girls, since I was a kid, there's no malice, it's just something natural between women, natural things in female friendships, we are more affectionate with each other, we were never called less "women" for that.

but lately people have been romanticizing all female friendships instead of enjoying genuine love in a friendship between two women, that's sad, it's as if sapphic women have transferred this idea of ​​"there is no friendship between man and woman, it will always end in romance" for women, perpetuating this idea of ​​friendship being a foreplay, friendship alone is enough, especially friendship between women because we have this natural freedom to love another woman intensely in a friendship, not that men can't love other men intensely in a friendship, but they hide it because in our society it's harder for them to connect deeply with each other, I've seen men say that they talk more easily with women about feelings, that women are more sensitive and empathetic, men say that there's no such a thing as deeper and more sentimental conversations between two male friends, is almost a taboo, men aren't created to talk about feelings, they don't reveal it to other men, while women naturally talk about feelings with each other since forever, since our childhood, we always talk about deep and sensitive things, so it's easier to create a deep and intense connection in a friendship between two women, and it's beautiful because it's pure and genuine and as I said at the beginning of the text, without sexual or romantic intentions.

elmax it's an example of that, max and eleven both have boyfriends, and they create a beautiful bond with eachother, a friendship, they became best friends and it's so sweet and genuine, but people don't think friendship itself is enough so they prefer to start shipping and make a headcanon about them being in love, you know everyone is free to do that, ship whoever you want, but it will never stop bothering me, that diminish of the love of a friendship, the perpetuation about friendship being just a preliminary, instead of valuing max and eleven's relationship as being a beautiful and intense friendship between two girls.

this happens with a lot of girls friendships in media, I recently saw that people shipp emma and harriet, from the book "emma" by jane austen, and oh my god I've always loved their friendship, I've always loved how emma values ​​and cares about harriet, the pure love between them and the complicity, and then I found out that not even my girls escaped a romantic headcanon lmao.

recently there's also the case of alicent with rhaenyra in house of the dragon, I'm a fan of ASOIAF, the books, so obviously I never shipped them both, but I found interesting their friendship at the beginning of the show, I found it beautiful, but it didn't take long for people to start saying that they were in love, even though it's very obvious that rhaenyra was always interested in daemon, and for a while in criston cole, then in harwin, I have a headcanon of book rhaenyra being bisexual because of her relationship with laena, but it's nothing I can confirm either, now about rhaenyra from HOTD honestly she never showed anything other than a friendship with alicent, but ok I guess.

by the way there's a bunch of examples of friendships between women that people start to shipp romantically and becomes obsessed with it.

final note: your best friend can be the love of your life, and not in a romantic way, not a romantic love, "just" love.

[oswinpond]

Even after the new film, which certainly popularized Amy/Laurie in a way I’ve never seen before, I keep hearing a lot of the same old arguments: “Laurie never stopped loving Jo”, “Laurie didn’t really love Amy”, “Amy was a second choice/consolation prize”, “Jo should’ve been with Laurie” etc. And a lot of these people claim this is book canon. As I’ve just reread the book, I’ve got a lot of thoughts on all of this... 

(Note: This is all purely based on book canon.)

In the book, after Amy harshly scolds Laurie, he decides to go back to London and work for his grandfather to better himself. At first, he thinks he’s doing it for two reasons: Amy despises him and that hurts him, but also the idea that if he does something “splendid” Jo may love him (or at least respect him, as Amy put it). 

So Laurie decides to write a requiem for Jo “which should harrow up Jo’s soul and melt the heart of every hearer”. But he can’t come up with anything because he keeps humming the dance music reminiscent of the Christmas ball in Nice which he spent devoting himself to Amy all evening. So then he tries to compose an opera with Jo as his heroine, but it doesn’t work. “He wanted Jo for his heroine, and called upon his memory to supply him with tender recollections and romantic visions of his love. But memory turned traitor; and, as if possessed by the perverse spirit of the girl, would only recall Jo’s oddities, faults, and freaks, would only show her in the most unsentimental aspects.” 

Jo no longer fits as his heroine, no matter how hard he tries. So he gives up on that, and his imagination promptly comes up with another heroine for him without even trying: 

“This phantom wore many faces, but it always had golden hair, was enveloped in a diaphanous cloud, and floated airily before his mind’s eye in a pleasing chaos of roses, peacocks, white ponies, and blue ribbons. He did not give the complacent wraith any name, but he took her for his heroine and grew quite fond of her, as well he might, for he gifted her with every gift and grace under the sun, and escorted her, unscathed, through trials which would have annihilated any mortal woman.”

While Laurie doesn’t realize it, the woman he’s imagining is Amy. Amy with the blue ribbons in her golden hair, who put roses in his buttonhole, who he watched feed the peacocks in Paris, and who he first saw again in a carriage drawn by ponies. It’s also a little prophetic, as he does escort the real Amy through future trials. (Bonus: at the same time, Amy spends her time sketching some faceless man who clearly resembles Laurie, but she doesn’t realize it either.)

Contrary to what some in the fandom would claim, Laurie isn’t at all forcing himself to love Amy just so that he can be part of the March family. He doesn’t even realize that she’s become the “heroine” in his story, that she’s the woman he’s fantasizing about. He thinks he’s doing this to improve himself for Jo, but it’s Amy that’s inspiring him. 

And then Laurie realizes that his feelings for Jo are disappearing:

“Laurie thought that the task of forgetting his love for Jo would absorb all his powers for years, but to his great surprise he discovered it grew easier every day. He refused to believe it at first, got angry with himself, and couldn’t understand it [...] Laurie’s heart wouldn’t ache; the wound persisted in healing with a rapidity that astonished him, and instead of trying to forget, he found himself trying to remember. He had not foreseen this turn of affairs, and was not prepared for it. He was disgusted with himself, surprised at his own fickleness, and full of a queer mixture of disappointment and relief that he could recover from such a tremendous blow so soon. He carefully stirred up the embers of his lost love, but they refused to burn into a blaze: there was only a comfortable glow that warmed and did him good without putting him into a fever, and he was reluctantly obliged to confess that the boyish passion was slowly subsiding into a more tranquil sentiment, very tender, a little sad and resentful still, but that was sure to pass away in time, leaving a brotherly affection which would last unbroken to the end.”

This passage alone pretty much puts to rest the idea that Laurie never got over Jo. He actually got over her so easily and quickly that he felt disgusted with himself, thinking this made him fickle. His romantic feelings are gone, and soon will leave only a “brotherly affection” when the last of the hurt is gone as well. Maybe he got over her so easily because he simply mistook his strong bond with her for romance, or maybe it was just a rash and immature first love that was never going to last long anyways, or whatever else... point being, he got over her.

And Laurie was actually trying, and failing, to rekindle any love for Jo (unlike his unconscious growing feelings for Amy, which he wasn’t pushing for at all). As a last ditch attempt to revive that love, he writes to Jo asking if she was sure about her refusal, and when she responds that she absolutely could never love him that way, he accepts it without sadness or complaint this time. He’s already over her, so there’s nothing to be heartbroken over. That was his closure. He takes off the ring she gave him and locks it away with her letters, and that’s that. 

And that’s when he’s ready to open his heart to Amy. He starts corresponding with her so often their letters are flying back and forth constantly. He wants to go back to her, but he doesn’t want to until she asks; she finally does after she hears about Beth’s passing, and Laurie immediately drops everything to go to her “with a heart full of joy and sorrow, hope and suspense” (and this is after he knows she’s turned down Fred, so we know what he’s hoping for now). Amy is his first priority after Beth dies, even though Beth was dearest to Jo. Laurie meets Amy in Switzerland and, without saying anything, they both know their relationship has changed. 

They spend weeks doing everything together and spend all their time out at the lake. Despite the sad tidings, they wind up being their happiest together in Vevey. They both know that they’re in love with each other without even having to say it (they really seem to develop an unspoken communication at this point). And while Laurie knows that she’ll say “yes” to his proposal, he’s still nervous so he puts it off to enjoy his time with Amy in Switzerland. He imagines proposing to her in the chateau garden at moonlight, but instead blurts it out while they’re on a lake in the middle of the day:

Feeling that she had not mended matters much, Amy took the offered third of a seat, shook her hair over her face, and accepted an oar. She rowed as well as she did many other things; and, though she used both hands, and Laurie but one, the oars kept time, and the boat went smoothly through the water. “How well we pull together, don’t we?” said Amy, who objected to silence just then. “So well that I wish we might always pull in the same boat. Will you, Amy?” very tenderly. “Yes, Laurie,” very low. Then they both stopped rowing, and unconsciously added a pretty little tableau of human love and happiness to the dissolving views reflected in the lake.

And there’s so much to say about this little scene. While he had to beg and argue with Jo just to finally accept her firm “no”, he just has to ask a simple question with Amy and he gets his simple answer because they’re on the same page. The rather blunt metaphor of rowing well together, even when he uses one hand and she uses two, is all about how despite their differences they work. They keep time. And it calls back to Jo’s talk with Marmee where they both agree that Jo and Laurie never would’ve worked, in part because their similarities would clash horribly in a romantic relationship (but mainly because , y’know, Jo never once felt a single shred of romantic love for Laurie). 

Now, I can understand where people come from thinking Laurie was “replacing” Jo with Amy with lines like "Laurie decided that Amy was the only woman in the world who could fill Jo’s place and make him happy”. I get how this can be interpreted as Amy filling in for what was meant to be Jo’s place in his heart. But it makes a lot more sense in the context of Laurie’s speech to Jo towards the end when he explains his feelings:

“I never shall stop loving you; but the love is altered, and I have learned to see that it is better as it is. Amy and you changed places in my heart, that’s all. I think it was meant to be so, and would have come about naturally, if I had waited, as you tried to make me; but I never could be patient, and so I got a heartache. I was a boy then, headstrong and violent; and it took a hard lesson to show me my mistake. For it was one, Jo, as you said, and I found it out, after making a fool of myself. Upon my word, I was so tumbled up in my mind, at one time, that I didn’t know which I loved best, you or Amy, and tried to love you both alike; but I couldn’t. And when I saw her in Switzerland, everything seemed to clear up all at once. You both got into your right places.”

Laurie didn’t settle for Amy. Amy took Jo’s place in the sense that they swapped places in how he saw them, from romantic to platonic for Jo and vice versa for Amy. And those wound up being their “right” places. He believes he was always meant to fall in love with Amy and see Jo as his sister, and that he would’ve gotten to this point naturally even if things had played out differently.

I’ll admit I wasn’t a fan of how the 2019 film portrayed Jo in this situation, because in the book she was absolutely thrilled for Laurie and Amy, and is happily surprised when Marmee tells her she’d been hoping for them to fall in love. But in the film, they take her sadness over her loneliness too far IMO, and make it seem like she was actually bitter over Amy and Laurie being together, which unfortunately fuelled the “Amy stole Laurie from Jo” crowd a bit. And after her conversation with Marmee where she admits that she only wants Laurie because she longs to be loved, and Marmee points that “that isn’t the same as loving”, this makes movie!Jo seem “silly and selfish” as book!Jo puts it (because in the book, that was only a “what if” she entertained and never wrote any letter). 

Anyways, to conclude on all of this, when Amy and Laurie are married at and home, we get the thoughts of other characters on their relationship, and the unanimous opinion is that they’re completely in love and happy with each other. Jo herself insists that their happiness will for sure last, and notes how proud Laurie seems to be to call Amy his wife. Laurie, meanwhile, can’t stop talking about Amy through to the end (and Amy is clearly just as smitten). I dare you to read the last half of Part 2 and not find Amy and Laurie adorable together. 

And to hammer that last nail in the coffin on Jo/Laurie as a romance, we get Laurie meeting Professor Bhaer. It’s specifically noted that while Laurie is suspicious of Bhaer and notices his interest in Jo, it was “not of jealousy” but a “brotherly circumspection”. Amy even asks him if he’s at all jealous and Laurie tells her “I assure you I can dance at Jo’s wedding with a heart as light as my heels. Do you doubt it, my darling?” and it says that Amy’s “last little jealous fear vanished forever”. Laurie actually winds up happily supporting Bhaer once he sees he’s a great guy for his sister Jo, and suggests to Amy that they should try to help them out as a couple.

So no, Jo never loved Laurie romantically, Laurie absolutely did get over Jo, Laurie and Amy are so happy together it’s almost obnoxious, Jo is pro-Amy/Laurie and Laurie is pro-Jo/Bhaer, and Amy wasn’t a second choice, she was Laurie’s “meant to be” by his own words.

[audreyhheart]

Welcome to another incoherent review by me where I'm so obsessed with a book I can barely articulate my thoughts let alone my feelings.

Laurie "Spud" Odell, a young corporal who was injured at Dunkirk is recovering in a veterans hospital where he meets Andrew, a Quaker and conscientious objector serving as an orderly. During Laurie's convalescence they form a close platonic romance. Laurie understands the nature of their love but Andrew is too innocent to know that he is attracted to the corporal. Struggling with the harsh realities of gay life, Laurie is adamant about protecting Andrew's innocence.

Then Laurie is reconnected with Ralph, a naval officer, a few years older, whom he worshipped when they were at boarding school together. Ralph was expelled from school over a sexual incident with another boy. Upon leaving, he gave Laurie Plato's dialogue the Phaedrus, which Laurie has carried with him ever since. In it is the chariot allegory for which the novel is named. The charioteer, the soul, must learn to control both sides of love: the black horse, lust, and the white horse, altruism, on the path to enlightenment.

Like the charioteer, Laurie is pulled between these two impulses and is forced to choose between an ascetic life with Andrew or a sexually fulfilling life with Ralph.

"…could you bear, really, for us never to see each other again?"

I was not expecting to love this book as much as I did. I'm obsessed with Renault's Alexander trilogy. She is so good at bringing the ancient world to life, I honestly couldn't picture her writing anything else. This is a bold statement but I think I enjoyed this book even more. Who am I?!

I've heard The Charioteer mentioned a lot in connection with other groundbreaking works of gay literature from the 50s like Gore Vidal's The City and the Pillar. Both novels attempt to reconcile homosexuality with morality, and both illustrate how societal prejudice drives people into hiding and deforms the soul. I was moved by The City and the Pillar, but it's bleak and emotionally remote and I assumed this novel would be the same. I surprised to find The Charioteer romantic, tender and ultimately filled with hope.

The pace is languid and the drama exists mainly in subtext but that makes it all the more seductive. It's made up of all of these small moments of vulnerability and coded behaviour. It feels like every character is hiding how they feel behind rigid social norms and their hurt own pride.

There is the obvious parallel between what is going on in the war and their struggle as gay men. Andrew's refusal to fight, like his sexual purity can be read as cowardice or idealism.

Ralph on the other had is a worldly and brave officer, but he's had many lovers and introduces Laurie to the gay scene in the nearby town, where they are the subject of petty jealousies, gossip and drama.

From the anxious POV of Laurie, it is agonizing. His time with Andrew is peaceful, like they exist in a world of their own making, but he's faced with the burden of protecting the boy from his growing desire. With Ralph, he doesn't have to conceal his nature but it's chaos, the real world an ugly and unwanted intrusion.

The choice feels as much like a philosophical puzzle as it does a love triangle. I did not think it could come to a satisfying resolution until it did.

But it is not pedantic. The story is character-driven, charting emotional shifts amidst miscommunication and perceived slights. It's no less gripping than the war going on in the backdrop and the stakes feel just as high. Renault doesn't just create complex, flawed characters, she makes you love them for their flaws. The empathy contained in the final pages was almost more than I could handle.

My absolute favourite character has to be Ralph, with his savage takes on Laurie's relationship with Andrew: "You say this boy has guts, but what you're trying to do for him is to keep him like a mid-Victorian virgin in a world of illusion…"

Andrew may be the Quaker but Ralph is doing the Lord's work by teaching Laurie that it's okay to desire and enjoy sex with men: "I know what you're like without me there; you'll get into this morbid state when you think if you want something, then you shouldn't have it."

I also love how Ralph is adamant throughout the book that he is the pragmatic one, not a romantic like Andrew, and then starts making plans for he and Laurie to move in together literally the morning after they have sex for the first time. And don't think my heart doesn't grow ten sizes every time he calls Laurie "Spuddy" 💗

I know I love a book when I finish the last page and immediately go back and reread my favourite passages. One of the most beautiful things about characters who hide from each other, is that they also hide from the reader. I learn more about Laurie, Ralph and Andrew upon each reading and I look forward to discovering these characters again and again.

[phoenix43song]

Little Women [2019] Film Review and Analysis

I have been reading the Little Women series since I was a child and I grew up on the 1994 film version that stars Winona Ryder. I have also watched the 1933, 1949, 2017 (mini series), and the 2018 modern film adaptation. I have watched and enjoyed the web series The March Family Letters on youTube, which is another modern adaptation take on the story, though unfinished. I have a graphic novel and a novel called Meg and Jo that are also modern adaptations. I love the songs from the musical, and I wish to play Jo one day (after I get my singing voice back). You can say I am a bit obsessed, though it has been quite awhile since I last read Little Women and did research on Louisa May Alcott. When I heard Greta Gerwig was going to be making another adapation I reread the whole series. The research I have done on Louisa, and the research that I have read from other fans and scholars has made reading Little Women all the more interesting. I try to be a writer, though I've only ever written novella's and short stories and short films. I love the theatre, acting, and now I am directing for the first time. I have so many story ideas for novels, series, and for feature films (maybe even TV). I've also always loved art, though without praticing much since adulthood my skills have dwindled. I identify with Jo and with Amy and I am really glad that this version of the book did these character justice...well Greta went wayland on Jo a bit.

The character of Jo in this adaptation is fully realized, three dimentional, however she is made to be have way more of a temper when she's an adult, unlike the book. Jo has this Peter Pan mentality where she wants to keep living in childhood and never grow up. She is in denial of her feelings, and she doesn't understand romantic love fully until the end. Greta decided to really incorporate Louisa herself into Jo. Louisa wrote the book loosely based on herself and her sisters growing up because she was pressured in writing a children's novel. She didn't want Jo to get married: she wanted Jo to remain a spinster like herself. Louisa was pressured to marry Jo off so she did. And then she continued to write two more novels after Little Women (technically Good Wives): Little Men and Jo's Boys. She created Friedrich Bhaer for Jo, who was the perfect choice for her...and most readers can't seem to see why Jo fell in love with him when, based on the research that I did and others did, Louisa created him off of men she had crushes on. Yes Louisa had crushes; she most likely had a few short lived romances, but we'll never know because if she wrote any of this down in her diary or in letters they have been destroyed.

Friedrich Bhaer in Greta's Little Women is not Friedrich Bhaer. He shares but a few qualities. Louis Garrel did an amazing job with what material he was given and he understands his characters and Frieidrich's relationship with Jo far better than Greta does. Based off of interviews and other comments that Greta has mentioned Greta hates Friedrich and can't stand that Jo married in the end. She doesn't understand him nor their relationship. She took away everything that Friedrich is, how Jo became friends with him, the courting he does, and one of the most romantic proposals in classic literature. Greta decided on an ambiguous ending for her movie and I absolutely hate it. The umbrella scene is rushed, hurried, and not romantic at all and it's edited in a way that this only happens in the novel that Jo writes because she is pressured, or somewhat forced, to marry off her heroine. Then there are cuts where we see Jo at her school for boys and girls, where her family presents a cake for Marmee's 60thbirthday and we see that Friedrich is there. This is cut where Jo is watching her book being made and she hugs it to herself: I really enjoyed this part of the ending, but the ending could have still followed the book more and not edited and written in a way where Jo's love for Friedrich and marriage isn't fiction. I mean Greta even had Amy and Meg drag Jo to go after him when Friedrich leaves and claim that Jo loves him. This is a change that...it destroys the characters in a huge way.

Friedrich isn't German in this film, though we do see him go into a German Beer Hall with his friends. I did love the dance scene in the Beer Hall and him dancing with Jo. He's French because Louis is French. Part of me wishes Greta would've gotten a German actor because Germany in it's people and culture was a huge part of Louisa's life and German is scattered all over the book. But I love Louis Garrel so this aspect of Friedrich didn't bother me that much. However...we don't get to know him and we don't get his backstory in this film. He doesn't play with the children, his immigration and carring for his orphaned nephews isn't mentioned, and him bringing Jo to intelletual gatherings isn't seen. Him giving Jo Shakespeare is in the film, but it's not done in person. He helps Jo with giving honest feedback on her stories and Jo doesn't take constructive critism well at all and yells at him. Friedrich likes Jo and you can tell. It's even shown that Jo likes him as well, but we sadly don't get to see their friendship: hell they don't really have much of a relationship in this movie. When Friedrich comes to visit Jo at the March house, we can see that Jo is surprised but pleased. I really do love how the family really likes him and gets to know him, and that they can see that the two love each other but that Jo is in denial. Except...Jo isn't really in denial in the book. She blushes when she realizes that Friedrich has come to court her. Jo in the book feels more mature by this point then she does in the movie.

Jo also tries to make herself love Laurie by writing him a letter because she's lonely. She never does this in the book. She does have one mention of a what if scenario but she stands by what she always thought: that she only loved Laurie like a brother. I really loved the scene where Jo rejects Laurie when he proposes because she's telling the truth and we even see in the movie that that have this special commarderie that's close but platonic, and not romantic. I do love how Greta explains and shows different kinds of love and growth in the sisters. But this seemed to degrade Jo a bit when it comes to actual full realized growth. I just don't understand where Greta was going with this and why she doesn't seem to understand Jo and Jo and Friedrich together. She put way too much of Louisa into Jo when Jo is a fictional character and not 100% Louisa. It's made to look like the umbrella propsal is fiction and that Jo did end a spinster. I am so upset right now at this that I will talk about what I did love and more of my analysis from a filmmaking aspect. (I doubled majored in theatre and in film in college and I do know that there will be changes in adaptations. However this doesn't mean that you can change characters and relationships to fit your own idea of how they should act and how they should end up. When you adapt a story you have to keep who the characters are and Greta doesn't do this with Friedrich nor with Jo in the end with her as a character and the relationship between the two).

So. This film is gorgeous. Beautiful cinematography, direction, costumes, acting, score, and editing. The only thing that I didn't like was how the characters read their letters to the camera. It took me out of the story and didn't fit in at all. The editing of present to past was well done, and I loved how it went with parallel themes. Each sister is three dimentional and real, and the different takes on money and love was really interesting. Beth's sickness and death was well done and so heartbreaking poignant. I loved how she got Jo to write again, and I loved the montage of Jo writing her novel. Mr. Dashwood was hilarious, and Meryl Streep had a blast playing Aunt March. Laura Dern made a capible Marmee but she didn't feel like Marmee to me sadly. Mr. March was barely in the film, but he's barely in the book so that was ok. The scenes between Mr. Lawerence and Beth were beautiful, and the scenes between Mr. Lawernce and Jo were good as well. I liked seeing Meg wanting riches, her feelings about being poor, but her love for John was a lot stronger and she made sacrifices. Amy was great, espeacially as an adult in Paris.

Laurie...I have a lot of thoughts on how Laurie was protrayed. I liked how his Italian ancestry was mentioned a lot and that Laurie could never sit still. I liked how he was represented as a drunk and ladies man until Amy talked sense into him. I like how we got to see how Amy and Laurie fell in love, and how Laurie realized that his love for Jo wasn't of the romantic nature either. He does love Jo and you can diffinitely see that, but at the same time they're best friends. Yes it's good to want to marry your best friend but at the same time you need more than just physical attraction ( and that's where Friedrich comes into the pitcuture). But there was something off about how he was represented. I honestly think it's because that Tim looks way too young for the adult version (even though he is an adult in real life), and that he's too skinny. Sorry I said it: Tim needs to put some meat on his bones.

This film does deserve awards and it bothers me that the film wasn't nominated for a Golden Globe (though Saoirse being nominated for Best Actress was a choice well deserved) or for an SAG awards. I hope the film is nominated a lot at the Oscar's at least. I would give this film somewhere between a 2.5 to a 3 out of 4 stars. This would've been a perfect 4/4...I know a lot of critics and fans love the ending, and that's there's only a minority of us that understand and love Friedrich, and Jo/Fritz together. At least we have other film adaptations and the musical – love the musical! - and I am really tempted to write my own version of a Little Women feature or mini series. I want to do more research on Louisa and write a biopic. I even have my own modern adapation ideas. This is a beloved book and I wish more people will read it, along with the rest of the series. To understand Jo/Fritz you have to read the last two books. This isn't really an essay or full on anaylsis, but more of me rambling, but let me know your thoughts in the comments. I would love to discuss Little Women and hear your thoughts and opinions. (Also sorry for spelling and grammar errors: I wrote this up really fast and didn’t bother to edit as I’m rather busy). 

[inculsionriderinc]

Unpopular opinion

I just saw Little women and loved every bit of it, the book and movies. Periodt.

What I don't understand is how folks are proclaiming "Jo March is a lesbian". I just don't get that vibe, I understand the trans!Jo vibe in that Virginia Woolf's Orlando way. But the lesbian vibe misses me I guess because Jo doesn't have a "bosom buddy" Anne of Green Gables style, which did infact give me the lesbian vibe because of the intense female friendship, with Diana Barry that could read romantic relationship. Anne meets Gilbert and Diana at the same time and they all grow up together much in the same way Jo and Teddy/Laurie do, I read it as Anne being Bi/Lesbian. It is my standard metric when reading a character's sexuality that their preference is demonstrated even in a platonic way outside of familial connections.

Jo doesn't have one friend outside of Teddy/Laurie and her sisters until she meets the professor. We know there are other girls around town because Meg has other female 'friends' so who is Jo's "bosom buddy"? Where's Jo desire for a woman or any other person? If anything Jo not realizing she loves the professor proves her to be an asexual type, Jo doesn't lack romantic inclination she just doesn't desire it for herself which is why and what she rejects with Teddy/Laurie. What Jo wants and enjoys is companionship, which she got from her sisters until they leave her. Jo begs Meg to stay with her instead of marrying Brooke, Amy goes to Europe instead of her, Teddy/Laurie goes to Europe as well, Beth dies, her father returns and Marmee's attention shifts. Jo does not want to be alone as she sees her Aunt March being, but rejects marriage being the only solution when writing is fulfilling to her why can't that be enough, but if Jo doesn't have people, like Beth, then who is her writing for, that's what Jo is struggling with. Jo marrys the professor, because he challenges her to write better and more and she needs that because Jo fears being married to someone who would stop her from writing. Jo does marry the professor in the books sequels, Little Men and Jo's Boys, so again I ask is Jo a Lesbian, where? IMO, Jo's lesbianism is conflated, Jo is a feminist, fictional whimsical character while the author, Alcott broke serious ground for feminism and most likely was lesbian.

I think the lesbian/trans vibes are misattributed to Jo when they should be attributed to the Author, Louisa May Alcott, just from reading her Wikipedia page.

"In Little Women, Alcott based her heroine "Jo" on herself. But whereas Jo marries at the end of the story, Alcott remained single throughout her life. She explained her "spinsterhood" in an interview with Louise Chandler Moulton, "I am more than half-persuaded that I am a man's soul put by some freak of nature into a woman's body. … because I have fallen in love with so many pretty girls and never once the least bit with any man.” [14] However, Alcott's romance while in Europe with the young Polish man Ladislas "Laddie" Wisniewski was detailed in her journals but then deleted by Alcott herself before her death.[15][16] Alcott identified Laddie as the model for Laurie in Little Women.[17] "

Thank for coming to my Ted talk!

[televinita]

Little Women (2019): Thoughts

REQUIRED READING: the prequel post about my background going in to this film.

SNAPSHOT VERSION: Though I have some casting qualms, and may adjust my opinions after I reread the book, mostly I think this is everything my heart has needed since the magic of the ‘94 movie was broken for me. My heart is very full.

FULL VERSION: Twice as long as the prequel post (a.k.a. 1800 words), starts below.

I did not expect LW to be the first Unexpected Comeback Fandom of 2020 (or a comeback fandom ever, really), but here I am, having spent every day since I saw this film mooning about this story and looking up different editions and supplemental books in the library catalog, so I'd better process how I feel about it while the memories are relatively fresh.

Most of my thoughts are on casting rather than specific scenes because like I said, I can’t remember the book super well, so I’d like to get my movie memories to fade so that the book can surprise me. Also because I think I will have a more in-depth post about them when I watch the film a 2nd time, whether that’s in theaters or on DVD. But here’s what I’ve got for now.

ON CASTING

In no particular order --

* Emma Watson is very pretty but it is so hard to take her seriously as an actress. She's just Emma Watson, Famous For Being In Harry Potter and Getting Hired For Other Big Name Projects. I feel like she's so consciously acting all the time. She made a not-terrible Meg, I guess? No worse than she made a Belle. But it was roughly as hilarious watching her try to be a mother now as it was watching her try to be a mother in the last Harry Potter movie. To the point that I just kept hearing the "Damn! I'm SO maternal!" song playing as her theme in the background at all times. * I realized 6 days prior to seeing the movie that Florence Pugh is recognizable because she's in Midsommar and honestly, that just ruined everything for me. I didn't even see that film, I just know it's gross and I would hate it and while she is not tainted forever like the 50 Shades actors, she is definitely too tainted for Little Women. Also I could not stop thinking about how I associate Amy with being very dainty and prim and Florence, while perfectly lovely, is not. * Laura Dern was kind of strangely modern and kooky for Marmee, but I love her as an actress and I loved that she was just like "HELLO STRANGE NEIGHBOR BOY, COME BE MY FIFTH CHILD." So I was OK with that. * ARE YOU KIDDING ME WITH BOB ODENKIRK. What kind of anachronistic garbage. What crack were you on, because it was obviously not the good stuff. "Did I stumble into an SNL parody??" I wondered more than once. * Meryl Streep as Aunt March was AMAZING. Ten Oscars. * Beth consistently looked younger than Amy, so that was weird. She was okay but kind of childlike, and failed to make Beth my favorite like she is in the book. * JO! Saoirse Ronan is by far my favorite actress in this set, but I didn't think she was right for Jo going in. "Jo's not a redhead!" I said, indignantly stamping my foot, because my childhood-era love for this novel reigns defensively supreme like for no other classic besides Black Beauty. (another 1994 classic they should remake soon, even though I love that version. Just saying.)

But damned if she did not COMPLETELY embody every essence of Jo there is and make Jo my favorite character this time. Truly, nobody except Meryl Streep so thoroughly matched my expectations for their character. Ten Oscars, part II. Or at least the one she is actually nominated for. If Jo loses to ScarJo I will riot. * John was nice. I feel like he was exactly what he was supposed to be, which is to say kind of plain and milquetoast but perfect for Meg. I don't actually remember him existing in the novel, so that was an interesting game of "how important is this guy?" until suddenly Meg was getting married and I realized I did, in fact, have a very dim memory of a wedding from the book. I think I will like their romance more the second time around, though. * Mr. Laurence was VERY EXCELLENT. IDK why I know the actor, even after looking him up, but I liked him in this role a lot. His grandfatherly quasi-adoption of Beth was so sweet. * As for Professor Bhaer...UGH. I hated him on sight and my brain wouldn't even let me recognize who he was for like 3 scenes, I was just like, "who is this random boarding lodger and why are we focusing on that weirdo." I mean, he's objectively handsome? But he did not do it for me. He lacked the gravitas I expect from this character and his thick accent scraped my ears and drove me insane (update from the future: his accent is also driving me insane in the book, where I have peeked in at a few chapters as incentive to reread. whyyyyyyy). * LAURIE: maybe it's been too long since I read the book, but never could I ever have imagined I'd want to use the term "fuckboy" to describe Laurie. It wasn't even Ski Chalet's face so much as it was that in all present-day scenes (post-rejection), he is such an insufferable, melodramatic, pouting trash heap that I didn't want him to marry any of them at that point. (Also YOU STILL DIDN'T MAKE ME UNDERSTAND WHY HE GOES FOR AMY, so good job.**) However, I took especial delight in paying attention to all the cuddly platonic friend cuddling he heaped on Jo growing up, in focus or in the background, and I loved it...kind of a lot? The ship radar made noise. That noise is getting louder by the day, smoothing away his faults. He may have permanently taken up residence in my mind's eye as the new Laurie. ...this is the worst. Make it cease. (**update from the future, I am peeking at the book and it looks like it's a lot easier to understand both in text and when you're inside Laurie's head. He is still clearly sulking his way through Europe, but in a way it's easier to recover from. Also, I don’t have time to unpack this but as I finish the edits on this post I started 5 days ago, I’m starting to think I could not only ship Laurie/Amy, but believe in it from the start.) ACTUAL PLOT AND FILM QUALITY

+ The shifting between past and present was very jarring right off the bat, but after that I think it worked.

+ I loved the attic play rehearsals so much

+ I am so glad Jo’s shorn hair is both fleeting and as hideous as it should look, and not Pixie Cut Chic (Childhood Me wailed at that part reading the book)

+ I remember hardly anything about the book's Part II / Good Wives, so basically everything in their adult lives was news to me. Amy and Aunt March go to Europe? Jo goes to live by herself in New York? Meg marries a relative pauper? Any of this could be true to the book or just made up as an alternate idea to explore, and I would be none the wiser. That made it more fun. (NOBODY SPOIL ME ON WHAT'S TRUE)

+ It did not occur to me until just now that the part where Jo publishes her version of Little Women is not in the book (right?), but that was beautifully done.

+ The house interiors were breathtaking. It's not like I don't regularly watch period pieces, but this time there was just something about seeing an old house, like the ones I am often in for estate sales, decorated the way I always imagine seeing when I enter those homes, that kind of made me tear up. + The outside shots were pretty too + Jo made me cry with her I'm so LONELY! speech, rude. (I went into this movie thinking I was 100% on board to finally read Alcott’s sequels for their Jo/Professor content, and now I'm like 'ah damn it is gonna be the season for the Jo/Laurie AU novel, isn't it.')

+ A strike against Beth and/or the actress playing her: I did not cry about her death (in my defense I was busy crying about Jo's pain).

+ I did NOT remember precisely how Laurie & Amy got married, so even though I knew it happened eventually, I felt that sucker punch to the gut reveal just about as hard as Jo did. WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOUR WIFE.

+ My mom said she’d heard this movie was lauded as being super feminist, which rarely goes well for me, but I thought it felt like really authentic "married women literally were not allowed to control their own income and it sucked" 19th century feminism, and not someone using their 21st century voice to claim this is how people would have REALLY talked if The Patriarchy Of Historical Record hadn't silenced/suppressed it. Nothing rankled me. I’m very confused by the people who think it says Jo is queer and/or didn’t end up with the Professor, but if that’s what you see then I guess it’s a win/win situation for all of us. + LOVED the closing montage. + Basically, at all times that I wasn't annoyed by the casting, I was feeling the same magic I did while reading the book and/or while watching the 1994 movie as a child. I can’t think of any parts I really hated.

IN CONCLUSION

Part of me is honestly kind of sad I didn't reread the book before watching this movie, because even though I usually prefer to go movie first and then get the Expanded Edition that is the book, in this case I wish I'd taken my last chance to properly visualize everything in my head on my own -- since I’ve mostly forgotten the ‘94 film -- before the new movie washed it away forever. This is one of the rare times I would have liked to hope and guess what would be shown vs. cut, and be able to anticipate the thrill of seeing the page come to life.

However, seeing it was the impetus I needed to finally take my childhood copy off the shelf (and thank heavens I have it, because the library request is backed up 3 or 4 deep for every copy), and it took all of 5 minutes to get instantly sucked into chapter 1 and feel such rapturous joy and familiarity that I consciously cut myself off and decided I am going to journal out my feelings after each chapter on this reread. So that’s something!

[godulv]

✌❤

You do Fen/Matt/Baldwin, right?

I have a slightly unpopular opinion in this fandom I believe, in that I prefer a platonic Fen/Baldwin for a couple of reasons. The first and foremost being that I think Fen deserves and easy, genuine friendship that hasn’t initially been coloured by his family’s reputation. (Not counting Laurie, of course, as they’re family) Fen, particularly the way I write him, has such a hard time connecting with people because of his past and subsequent personality that his instant friendship with Baldwin was/is fun and refreshing and deserves recognition as just that, a friendship. And I believe it’s a friendship that Fen really needs to fall back on because of the second reason, which actually applies to all ships, not just Fen/Baldwin. Fen is under a lot of pressure as leader of the Raiders and his constant struggle to find his place in a “normal” family setting, his questions about his mother, not to mention all the normal ups and downs of being a hormonal teenager, he’s hesitant to get involved in romance of any kind, though he has experienced crushes on both boys and girls.

I do like Fen/Matt quite a lot. From the first moment they all met I thought Fen/Matt or Matt/Laurie would be really fun to see, although as the books progressed, Matt/Reyna won out as my OTP as I adored their chemistry in the last book.

Wow, okay, this got longer than I expected... and none of this is to say I’m not willing to or interested in exploring the relationships between these characters, they just don’t currently align with my blog’s default main verse.

[lilacerull0]

jo march the girl with the burnt dress and laurie laurence the boy with too many neckties...

[lilacerull0]

So what are your thoughts on Jo's letter to Laurie in the 2019 film?

FUCK. (what a way to start an essay woah) THIS IS MY!!!!! FAVOURITE ACT OF ALTERING THE SOURCE MATERIAL AND IT SUCKS THAT PEOPLE JUST.... do not get it lol. it's an excellent addition and it says sooooo much if you read the text properly... let's look at it shall we:

the worst fate is to be a wife -> the worst fate is to live my life without you in it. she never confesses love!!!! she would... if they were still children. back when i love you only meant i love you ... when it could be something that was solely theirs!!!! she's not saying that she wants to marry him... she's just picking the lesser of what she considers to be two evils... and YEAH, it is a love story, her best friend is absolutely essential to her (which she knows now. that he's gone.) and she is lonely. and man the lifespan of this letter (it is alive to me ok) is simply devastating... it is kept alive in the mailbox laurie introduced, it is locked away thanks to the key laurie's gifted jo and her sisters (her sisters. the only force capable of overpowering jo's ambition). and that, to me, is the perfect metaphor for jo and laurie themselves... keeping each other alive, but at what cost... does the world you created protect you or cut you off from everything else (they are physically separated from everyone during the dance sequence... on the porch while life goes on) their friendship ridicules social norms and jo LOVES that, she loves seeing herself in laurie... and then. and then the person you thought shared your worldview is perfectly happy living the life both of you were supposed to be running away from... she literally tries to embody him here. (WEARING HIS CLOTHES IN THAT SCENE WITH BETH TOO!!!!!)

look at this progression:

they're practically sharing a face in the scene above vs the camera barely even lets them be in the same shot in the scene below and when it does there's a clear drift between them (excellent work with filters too. mwah), like they're not supposed to be in a room together (OBSESSED with how damn physical it all is and it's a FRIENDSHIP!!!! so punk, punk rock equivalent I AM RIGHT)... they embrace, but the focus is on each of their faces separately while the twin boys hug (jo sells her hair moment) from their youth does little to accent their individual features... their faces are mostly hidden...

she's not in love with him!!!!! the person who was supposed to be her equal in everything is just... not the same as her... what if she's the only one dreaming of far away places and pirate ships? well, for one... that would mean she's all alone. I'M NOT IN LOVE WITH YOU!!!! WE ARE JUST THE SAME!!!!! because of you i can love all the crooked parts of me. it's so fucked up actually lmaooo. back to the letter... THE DEATH SCENE (letters can die) look at the script, this fucking haunts me:

once it left the mailbox, the letter has to die... "she might end her suffering in the most tragic way - she leans towards the river"... just... the loss of friendship synchronized with physical impairment. it's all about the idealized world you've created in your head blending with the harsh version of reality you've also created in your head and resulting in The Unknown (the truth is always in the in-between) and jo wants the world to just ... stop altogether because of this... she can't get the bookish culmination of events, neither the fairytale nor the tragedy... she can't love laurie differently so no Happy Ending from her romance novels (she reads them!!!! we always forget it, but she loves romance novels!!!) and everything is so mind-numbingly passive so no Shakespearean Death... (i'd even argue that she doesn't end her suffering in the most tragic way because she finds her reality lacking in events that would support that sort of final act... also ties in to my thoughts on the movie's particular manner of storytelling! nothing Important ever happens, but lives keep on changing... amy march gets it!!!!) idk man... just. the letter. it's all about the letter.

[lilacerull0]

I'm platonically in love with you.

- Radio Silence, Alice Oseman

you were breakin' down

I'd fall to pieces on the floor

If you weren't around.

too young to know it gets better.

I'll be summer sun for you forever.

forever winter if you go...

he says, "why fall in love, just so you can watch it go away?"

...

he says he doesn't believe anything much he hears these days

I say, "believe in one thing, I won't go away"

Love is the extremely difficult realization that some other than oneself is real.

- Iris Murdoch

You remind me of parts of myself I will never have a chance to meet.

- Mariah Gordon Dyke

The Thin Line Between Love And Love

(part 1/? of love never repeats itself, part 2, part 3, part 4)

Forever Winter, Taylor Swift/Steve & Robin, Stranger Things/Jo & Laurie, Little Women/ House & Wilson, House M.D./Anne & Cole, Anne with an E/Neil & Todd, Dead Poets Society

[lilacerull0]

thinking about The Proposal (TM) and jo and laurie and... she turned him down while wearing his clothes. his. clothes. it's a sentiment that runs soooo deep, like- it's not your usual period drama proposal where the woman says no because she doesn't love the man proposing or she thinks she doesn't love him or that he doesn't love her. jo loves laurie, she knows, he's a part of who she is, like a major chunk of who she wants to be even and the costuming reflects that. they both lead the life the other one desperately wants to lead (gender. in. lw.), but regardless of their circumstances, the external factors, at their core they are the same. the same up until that moment. that, the proposal, that is when it all shifts and it shifts in such a grandiose way and it hurts hurts hurts and they both know there's no coming back now but they also know, both of them do, that it was all a long time coming, an inevitability. but- she is wearing his clothes because... she won't be able to let go of him. not anytime soon at least. and there's that catastrophic chain of thought that comes to jo at this time: i thought i did love laurie, i do love laurie, why isn't it enough? do i love him at all? what and who do i love if i don't love laurie? (as swift puts it: "if i can't relate to you anymore, then who am i related to?") is the love that i can provide enough? will it ever be? but she does love him, he's her best friend, her mirror, one half of her heart and there's nothing that's "lesser" than love about any of it. society sucks, man.

[lilacerull0]

enveloped in a sunset

part 3/? of love never repeats itself, part 1, part 2, part 4

The Picture of Dorian Gray, Oscar Wilde / House x Wilson, House M.D. / Jo x Laurie, Little Women / Untouchable, Taylor Swift / I'll be your mirror, The Velvet Underground

[lilacerull0]

you know what, i hate the whole oversimplification of jo and laurie where they are widely recognized as sweet platonic soulmates blah blah blah because of the 2019 film. THAT'S A PLATONIC ROMANCE!!!! THAT FRIENDSHIP IS A TRAGEDY!!!! it's bittersweet and complex and horrific in some ways, it's the construction of a romantic connection placed in a platonic setting. it's not 💕cute💕 and it's not 💫friendship goals💫.

[lilacerull0]

Whatever you do, don't you ever think about Jo and Laurie and how the idea of romantic love affected both of them, just don't. do. that.

[lilacerull0]

the only correct reading of jo and laurie is that they're BOTH peter and wendy